Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Commonwealth Games

John Robertson: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on the employment opportunities in Scotland provided by the Glasgow Commonwealth games 2014.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that extensive answer. I know he realises that the Commonwealth games are very important to Glasgow and, for that matter, to the UK. However, the people I have been speaking to have some concerns about job opportunities and investment in the city that might have a knock-on effect on the games. They cite the 40 per cent. cut in funding for Glasgow's science centre, with a loss of 28 jobs, as an example of what could happen if the Edinburgh Executive have a go at it. Will he assure me that he and his Department will ensure that the Glasgow Commonwealth games are properly funded and go ahead as planned?

David Cairns: I am glad that my hon. Friend liked my original answer, when I said that the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister. That is more than I do, as the First Minister refuses to discuss these issues with me. He is far too grand to discuss them with an oik from a council estate in Greenock.
	My hon. Friend is right on two counts. The Glasgow science centre—which I believe has been described in some quarters as a complete waste of money—is a magnificent addition to the city of Glasgow. It is an investment in science at exactly the time when that is what we need. I absolutely deplore the cut that he has mentioned, but I am convinced that the Commonwealth games will go ahead and that they will be a magnificent success.

Michael Moore: May I through you, Mr. Speaker, take this opportunity to pay tribute to David Marshall? He was a stalwart of Scottish questions and will be sorely missed in the Chamber. He had many friends across the House and we on these Benches wish to express all our best wishes to him and his family. If he were here, I am sure that he would also be pressing the Minister on this issue. We are all ambitious for the opportunities that the Commonwealth games will give Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. More immediately, however, is the Minister not alarmed by the fact that so far only 2 per cent. of the contracts awarded to businesses for the 2012 Olympic games have come to Scottish businesses? Is that not symptomatic of how Labour has taken its eye off the ball and become out of touch with Scotland's needs?

David Cairns: No, the hon. Gentleman is not right about that, but he is right to pay tribute to David Marshall. He was an outstanding Member of Parliament for 29 years, a very assiduous attender of Scottish questions and one who never feared to hold Governments to account, whatever their political persuasion.
	The Commonwealth games are a magnificent opportunity for Glasgow, not just for the fact that people from all over the world will come to visit or for the sporting success and legacy but for the massive investment that there will be in the city. We anticipate that up to 5,000 apprenticeship places—2,000 in the construction industry alone—will be offered as a result of the work going on between Glasgow city council and the Department for Work and Pensions. I think that the games will be a success, however one looks at them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Olympics, and I encourage all businesses, Scottish-based or otherwise, to bid for the contracts. It is important to look at the value of some of the contracts, and not just their overall number. Scottish companies have won parts of the Olympic business that are of considerable value.

Brian H Donohoe: May I also put on record my appreciation of the help that I got from David Marshall over the years? He helped me enormously, in this place as well as in my constituency.
	I congratulate Glasgow on its successful bid for the Commonwealth games, but will my hon. Friend the Minister also congratulate the work force and management at Spirit Aerosystems in Prestwick? This week, they have won an enormous order worth £900 million, perhaps the biggest to have come to Ayrshire for a generation. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to thank my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform for all the work they have done in winning that enormous order.

David Cairns: The order to which my hon. Friend refers is extremely important for his constituency in Ayrshire and for the whole economy of the west of Scotland. Saving his blushes, I know that he was instrumental in campaigning very hard behind the scenes for that.
	My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. There is already pressure on Scotland's labour market thanks to the historic numbers of people in employment, but we are preparing for the Commonwealth games and trying to get new apprenticeships in the construction industry. At the same time, the two new aircraft carriers that are due to be constructed in Glasgow mean that there is massive investment in the city, and it is important that we get people with the rights skills and training to take advantage of it.

Pete Wishart: The Minister will know that almost all the costs of the Commonwealth games will be met by the Scottish Government, with a 20 per cent. contribution from Glasgow city council. At the same time, he and his Glasgow colleagues voted to divert some £20 million from Glasgow to pay for the London Olympics, which will have an impact on some of the most vulnerable groups in the city of Glasgow. Will he and his Glasgow colleagues now have the guts to join the Scottish National party in demanding that that money be repatriated to Glasgow, so that we can build a legacy for the Commonwealth games in Glasgow?

David Cairns: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is not too grand to debate the issues with me today. Of course, when the Olympic games were won by the United Kingdom for the city of London, the SNP said that the games would do nothing for Scotland, and when the Commonwealth games went to Glasgow, Fergus Ewing MSP said that they would do nothing for the highlands. The insularity and parochialism of the SNP is, quite frankly, breathtaking. The Olympic games will be good for Scotland, good for Scottish athletes and good for Scottish business, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) should stop whingeing about them.

David Mundell: May I associate myself with the comments about David Marshall? I should also say that although I fully accept the reasons why the Secretary of State is not present, today is a clear example of why the role of Secretary of State for Defence should not be combined with other responsibilities.
	The Minister will be aware that most of the Commonwealth games will be concentrated in the Glasgow, East constituency, where 47 per cent. of people are economically inactive and more than half do not have a single qualification to their name. Does he recognise that Glasgow, East has reached that sorry state after 11 years of Labour central Government and decades of Labour local government? And will he explain to the House, if not to Mr. Salmond, why the Prime Minister refuses even to visit the constituency after attempting to impose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That part is well beyond the scope of the question.

David Cairns: The Conservatives have just noticed that there is poverty in some parts of the UK. We could have told them that; we have spent the past 11 years combating it. We have seen unemployment halved in Glasgow, East and hundreds of people coming off incapacity benefit and going into work—people who were left languishing on incapacity benefit when the Opposition were in government. There are nine new primary schools, three more on the way and two new secondary schools in that constituency. I know that the hon. Gentleman's party leader visited it: he went to the church of St. Jude, the patron saint of hopeless cases.

David Mundell: The Minister sounds just like the Prime Minister, and that is not intended to be a compliment. The Minister takes the people of Glasgow for fools; he talks about the past when they are interested in the future. So perhaps he will explain why his party is not campaigning on issues such as economic regeneration after the Commonwealth games. Instead, its campaign, now that it has finally started, is solely about the survival of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall try to settle this, and I think that this is the easiest way. The Minister is not responsible for party campaigns. [Hon. Members: "He is."] Well, let me qualify it further. He is not responsible for party campaigns in this House or in his capacity as a Minister here today. Now, can we get a response that is nothing to do with my native city of Glasgow—the campaign, that is, in my native city of Glasgow?

David Cairns: I entirely accept your admonition, Mr. Speaker.
	Throughout the city of Glasgow, we have seen a huge reduction in unemployment and large numbers of people coming off incapacity benefit—people who were put there during the 1980s—and going back into work. We are also going to see massive investment in apprenticeships because of the Commonwealth games and this Government's decision to build two new aircraft carriers in British shipyards. Glasgow's Govan and Scotstoun shipyards will take the credit for it.

Tobias Ellwood: Five years late.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman says, "Five years late." Has he any idea what his party did to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde, or the utter decimation that they brought? We are revitalising the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I shall try the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid).

Fuel Prices

Alan Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of recent rises in the price of fuel on the economy of the highlands and islands.

David Cairns: Recent fuel price increases will continue to have an effect across the UK, but the economy of the highlands and islands continues to show resilience, with an employment rate significantly above the UK and Scottish averages.

Alan Reid: I am a bit worried about the complacency behind that answer, because the recent fuel price rises are causing a real economic crisis on the islands and in the remote parts of the mainland, particularly on the Kintyre peninsula. The situation may not have worked its way through to the unemployment figures yet, but unless the Government take urgent action, it soon will. Owing to the long distances that must be travelled by road, the high fuel price is causing serious problems for business and putting the economy at real risk. Other European countries charge a lower rate of fuel duty in remote areas, so will the Government, as a matter of urgency, introduce a similar scheme in this country?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that with the global increase in oil prices feeding through into increased fuel prices, people are feeling the pinch, and it is costing people more to fill up their car; we entirely accept and understand that. I know that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who is not here today, has put a particular proposal to the Treasury on that issue. I understand that Treasury Ministers are examining it and will get back to him.

Anne Begg: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had time to see Oil & Gas UK's economic report, published yesterday, which identified that there were at least 25 billion barrels of oil still to be recovered from the North sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing the recovery of that oil will bring down the price and make life better in terms of the economic development of the highlands and islands?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to say that there is at least 25 to 30 years-worth of viable economic activity in the North sea. We have to make sure that we get that oil out, particularly in areas such as those west of Shetland. Of course, high oil prices are bad for Scotland, for the economy, for businesses and for motorists. The politicians who gloat over high oil prices as though all that they represented was a windfall for the Exchequer, and who use the prices to make their dodgy sums add up, would do well to focus their effort on reducing the cost of oil, instead of trying to divide the spoils as though they were a big cake.

Ben Wallace: On the subject of dodgy figures, the National Audit Office reckons that for every dollar increase in the price of oil, the Treasury gains £200 million. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that there is a net gain to the Treasury of £140 million per dollar. That means that with prices at $130 a barrel, the Treasury gets an extra £4.6 billion in revenue. Given that the Chancellor is raking in that extra revenue from the North sea, will the Minister agree not only to fight for the people of Scotland but to use some of the extra money to mitigate the high fuel costs that highlanders and people in the rest of Scotland face?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman quotes one review of the issue; let me quote another. The Institute for Fiscal Studies—not an institute that is normally very friendly to the Government—says
	"it is far from clear that there will be a net gain to the public finances from the higher oil price."
	As we know, if people spend more money on petrol and the car, they spend less money elsewhere. If high oil prices mean that businesses are having to contract, that means less tax coming from the economy. Overall, I simply do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is that there is a windfall from high oil prices. He simply cannot prove that point.

Scotch Whisky

Gordon Banks: What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the Scotch whisky industry to the Scottish economy.

David Cairns: The Scotch whisky industry is of massive importance to the Scottish economy, and that is why the Government will this year bring forward new measures to enhance its global protection.

Gordon Banks: The whisky industry is also vital for skills in Scotland's economy, and jobs and apprenticeships in my constituency, including those relating to coppersmiths. Will my hon. Friend urge the Scottish Executive to invest in those skills and protect the jobs in Ochil and South Perthshire?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is correct. There are some 45,000 jobs across Scotland directly dependent on the Scotch whisky industry, which is responsible for putting some £800 million into the Scottish economy, so it is an extremely important sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Alloa recently. They are good, skilled jobs; they are the kind of jobs that Scotland needs, which is why it is deeply disturbing that instead of investing in skills and apprenticeships, the Scottish Executive are cutting apprenticeships.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that planning permission has been granted for a new distillery, which is to be built in the town of Huntly? Will he recognise that the strength of the investment made there depends on a strong and healthy industry, and the export industry, and that increasing duty on whisky in future Budgets would not help the current resilience of that success?

David Cairns: The export bit of the industry does not pay that duty, and 90 per cent. of the value of Scotch whisky comes from the export market, which does not pay that duty. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is quite simply wrong on that. As I said in my initial answer, the export market—the international global market—is absolutely vital. That is why we will bring forward measures later this year to enhance the protection of Scotch whisky brands throughout the world, and ensure that the Scotch whisky industry has a stronger case if it needs to go to the World Trade Organisation. I sincerely hope and expect that his party will support those measures when they come forward.

Angus Robertson: The Minister will surely concede that raising duty undermines the efforts of the Scotch Whisky Association and others who are arguing to the likes of the Indian Government that they should reduce duties.
	I should like to raise another issue related to whisky. The Minister knows that Moray is home to more than half of Scotland's malt whisky distilleries and production. Does he share my enthusiasm for the current efforts to boost significantly the industry's tourism and economic benefits for the local area?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that there is tremendous tourism potential around the distilleries. More than 1 million visitors visit them each year, and they spend an average of £16 each visit, which is tremendously important. I have been to the Glenfiddich distillery in his constituency, where there is a beautiful visitor centre. We were offered a dram, but it was 9 o'clock in the morning so sadly we had to refuse. He is right to say that there is room for increased tourism potential. I shall have a look at the report that he mentions, and I hope that everyone will take it seriously.

National Minimum Wage

Jim Devine: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that businesses in Scotland comply with the national minimum wage.

David Cairns: In the 2006 pre-Budget report, the Chancellor announced an additional £2.9 million in each of the next four years for monitoring and enforcing the national minimum wage.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. The introduction of the minimum wage is another great achievement of this Labour Government, but an anomaly has been pointed out by Labour Members. If someone pays a bill in a restaurant with a credit card, including the tip, that tip becomes part of the minimum wage. Will my hon. Friend ensure that we solve that anomaly as quickly as possible?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the introduction of the national minimum wage is one of this Government's greatest achievements. In October, when the increases take effect, it will be 37 per cent. higher in real terms than when it was introduced.
	I am aware of the anomaly that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I know that other Labour Members have been campaigning on the issue. Since I became aware of it I have tended to pay in cash, because I think the problem arises when people pay with credit cards. It is an anomaly, and I shall draw it to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who has responsibility for consumer affairs.

Gavin Strang: Given the importance of agriculture to the Scottish economy and the case that is being made for expanding Scottish agricultural production, is it not unacceptable that the SNP Administration are consulting on a proposal to abolish the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board? Surely our industry needs more skilled and motivated workers, and they certainly need protection at least as good as that which agricultural workers in England and Wales have.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend is right about the importance of agriculture and the agricultural industry to the Scottish economy. Just as we introduced a minimum wage for all workers, agricultural workers deserve to be paid the minimum wage. Of course, the SNP has form on this, because when we voted to introduce the minimum wage, its Members did not even bother to turn up to vote.

Credit

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the effect of the availability of credit on the economy in Scotland.

David Cairns: The turbulence in global financial markets has had some effect on credit availability, and therefore economic prospects have become more uncertain. However, the Scottish economy demonstrates continuing economic growth, with a strong labour market.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Many people are reluctant to take credit, quite understandably, because of the history of Northern Rock and, most recently, Bradford and Bingley. What reassurance can he give Scottish consumers that Farepak and its like will not happen again in the run-up to Christmas?

David Cairns: The hon. Lady is right to mention the issue, which caused a lot of pain in constituencies around the country. I know that the Government are taking steps to address it. We will also bring forward measures in the legislative programme later this year to provide increased protection for people who have deposits in banks, learning the lessons of Northern Rock.
	It is worth mentioning that we have some fantastic credit unions in Scotland that help people who are on the very lowest incomes. Indeed, the two largest credit unions in the entire UK are both in Glasgow. It is important that people understand that credit unions have copper-bottomed guarantees when people invest and save money with them, and I am very happy to promote their work.

Michael Connarty: The Minister will know that I have written to the Secretary of State about the closure of London Scottish bank, or so-called bank, which is really an organisation giving unsecured loans—what one might call sub-prime loans—to people in Scotland. It has now closed its offices in a number of constituencies, and has told people that they do not have the right to 90 days' consultation, because it treats each office closure as a single redundancy. Can he assure me that he and the Secretary of State will intervene to make sure that those people get their rights, and that customers who are abandoned by such organisations are given proper security for their credit?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously on this issue, and I have received correspondence from him, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and, I believe, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The Government have introduced protection and rights for employees, and we expect all companies to comply with the letter and spirit of that legislation. I would be very concerned if any company, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend, is breaking those rights.

Angus MacNeil: Of course, the credit of the Scottish economy would be greatly improved by the use of the bonanza highlighted on the front page of  The Herald today of £6 billion from Scotland's oil. Will the Minister support the Scottish Government's attempts to introduce an oil fund, similar to Norway's, that would benefit the highlands and islands and all of Scotland, particularly Glasgow, East?

David Cairns: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to any of the earlier exchanges, he would know that while there is an increased tax take at a time of high oil prices, it is offset by a decreased tax take in other parts of the economy, so there is no great windfall for the Treasury, and he is flat out wrong. I would love to debate the issue of an oil fund with the First Minister, and how we should spend the revenues that are coming into Scotland, but he is the one who is running scared of that debate, not me.

Cross-border Policing

Nigel Griffiths: What recent representations he has received from the First Minister on cross-border policing.

David Cairns: There are regular and ongoing discussions at both ministerial and official level on a range of cross-border policing issues.

Nigel Griffiths: Are my hon. Friend's efforts not hampered by the empty promise of 1,000 extra police? After 14 months, not one single extra police officer has been provided. Is that not the most cynical betrayal of our communities by the SNP Administration?

David Cairns: We all remember the clear promise that was made: 1,000 extra policemen. In the Strathclyde police area alone, there are 200 fewer policemen today than there were 12 months ago. Taken with the latest plan to let half of Scotland's prisoners out on to the streets, that goes to show that the SNP is weak on crime.

Fuel Prices

Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware that rising prices—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a numbered question.

Michael Weir: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on the cost of fuel oil and propane gas in Scotland.

David Cairns: They are so keen to debate with me that they are leaping straight in.
	My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on a range of issues.

Michael Weir: I will get it right this time, Mr. Speaker.
	The Minister will be aware that rising fuel prices have caused increased fuel poverty in all parts of Scotland, but people on the national gas grid at least have access to social tariffs. Many people, particularly in rural Scotland, who rely on home fuel oil and propane gas do not have that option. Will he press DBERR and other colleagues in government to include those markets in Ofgem's regulation regime, to give them the option of social tariffs and some protection from spiralling prices?

David Cairns: I shall certainly draw that proposal to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of social tariffs, and he will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have met the utility companies to discuss the expansion of the role of social tariffs to help people at this time.

Robert Smith: rose— [ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the hon. Gentleman's fault: two oral questions have been withdrawn, because those who tabled them were called earlier.

Post Office Network

Robert Smith: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of the post office network in Scotland.

David Cairns: It is for Post Office Ltd to shape the future post office network according to the minimum access criteria outlined by the Government last year, and it has been consulting on local area plans. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's area plan consultation closed on 8 July.

Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for that answer, but what about the future of the Post Office? It is going through a programme of 2,500 closures, forced on it by the Government, and has the sword of Damocles hanging over it—the Government are to take away the Post Office card account by awarding it to rival competitors, meaning another 3,000 to 6,000 closures. Surely the Government should stand by the Post Office because it is the only organisation to provide proper rural access for pensioners to collect their pensions and benefits.

David Cairns: It is simply not the case that the Government are walking away from the Post Office. More than £2 billion of additional investment has already been put in, and £1.7 billion more additional investment has already been put in. We are extending universal banking so that people who live in rural areas can be part of the banking network.
	People's shopping habits have changed. People are choosing to access their services either directly from their bank or building society or online. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deprive people of that choice, that is his look out, but it is not very liberal. We are not going to deprive people of that choice, but we will continue to invest in a sustainable and viable post office network.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Norman Baker: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 July.

Harriet Harman: I have been asked to reply. As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today at the G8 summit in Japan.

Norman Baker: We know that a third runway at Heathrow will be very damaging for the local environment and drive an aeroplane through the Government's carbon reduction targets. Has the Leader of the House seen the comments of Bob Ayling, the former chief executive of British Airways, who said:
	"A third runway at Heathrow is against Britain's economic interests...It is likely...to prove a costly mistake"?
	When are the Government going to put the public interest first and stop behaving like a wholly owned subsidiary of BAA?

Harriet Harman: The Government are going to put both the economic interests of this country and the question of tackling climate change first. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are consulting on the question of Heathrow and considering a great deal of evidence. We will not make our decision until we have finalised and are satisfied by the question of the sustainability of the runway.

Don Touhig: The Government have a proud record of compensating miners who suffered as a result of their time in the pits. However, does my right hon. and learned Friend share my alarm that the vibration white finger group 3 scheme automatically assumes that claimants—often elderly miners—have exaggerated the time that they spent using vibratory tools, and cuts the hours in half and rejects the claims? Is that not an appalling abuse and age discrimination of the worst kind? What are the Government going to do to put it right?

Harriet Harman: The Government have done a great deal to compensate those who, just by going to work, have suffered horrific injury and disease at their workplaces. We have made important steps forward on vibration white finger. I will look into the point that my right hon. Friend has raised, but I know that he will agree with me that it is very important that today the Government have issued their consultation paper on how we compensate those who have suffered from pleural plaques.

William Hague: Given the turbulence in the financial sector, my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor proposed last year—the Chancellor has since agreed—that the amount of people's bank savings protected by the Government should rise from £35,000 to £50,000, and also that the system for paying out should be simpler and faster. Can the Leader of the House confirm when the Government intend to legislate to give effect to that proposal?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen in the Queen's Speech programme—the draft legislative programme—that there is a measure to ensure financial stability. At any time we are keeping under close review ensuring that we keep the economy on track. That is why although the economic situation is tough and threatens to get tougher, we will see the country through this difficult economic situation.

William Hague: The Chancellor did say on 1 October last year:
	"We will legislate in the forthcoming...session"—
	that is, this Session—
	"to implement this new regime."
	Given the approach of an 11-week recess, would it not be prudent and reassuring to expedite that particular aspect of the legislation specifically concerned with deposit insurance and pass it into law as soon as possible? As there is cross-party agreement on the need for the measure, would the Government respond positively to an offer of help from the Opposition to ensure that the measure passes through Parliament before the summer recess?

Harriet Harman: Of course, all offers of help from the Opposition to get our legislation through are very welcome. The right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet under the previous Conservative Government, so perhaps he knows a bit about the economy. Perhaps he will remember that when he was in the Cabinet— [ Interruption . ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. and learned Lady speak.

Harriet Harman: Since the right hon. Gentleman is offering Labour Members economic advice, perhaps I can remind him of the time when he was in the Cabinet. Was unemployment higher or lower than it is now? It was higher. Were interest rates higher or lower than they are now? [Hon. Members: "Higher!"] Was debt higher or lower than it is now? [Hon. Members: "Higher!"] I think that we will have help with our legislation from him, but we can manage without his advice.

William Hague: It is a great pity that the right hon. and learned Lady cannot answer on this particular point. If she wants to be Prime Minister, she had better start acting like one. Since she says that the offer of support from the Opposition is welcome, will she at least undertake to consult her colleagues, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, when he comes back from the G8, and come back tomorrow with a full and considered response that takes into account the instability of the financial markets, the length of the recess, the widespread agreement that something needs to be done, and the duty of the Government to reassure and protect the public?

Harriet Harman: Of course I will consult my colleagues, and of course the Government will bring forward the necessary legislation. When it comes to manoeuvring, I want to know why once again the right hon. Gentleman has manoeuvred the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) out of her job of answering the questions. Last time, I offered her some advice that clearly did not work. This time, my suggestion is that she should give up on the Tory party, go across Lambeth bridge to Lambeth palace, and apply to become a bishop.

Anne Snelgrove: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in thanking the hard-working staff of Great Western hospital in Swindon, who have used extra funding from the Government to cut clostridium difficile cases to well below target? Will she ensure that matrons throughout the country have the resources to keep the NHS sparkling in its 60th anniversary year?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the staff at Great Western hospital and throughout the national health service on tackling hospital-acquired infection—that is important work. The 60th anniversary of the national health service is an opportunity to pay tribute to its entire staff team, who have kept it going even when it was under-resourced and struggling, and to pay tribute to their work under the leadership of Ara Darzi. Two thousand clinicians have been involved in shaping a consultation paper for the way forward. I hope that we can not only thank all staff in the NHS for their work but invite them to help us to shape the way forward for the future of the NHS.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister acknowledge the severity of the crisis in the housing industry, where leading private house builders are going bust, sacking 40 per cent. of their workers and dragging down the banks because they have an excess of unsold private houses? Will the Government therefore build up their sensible but pathetically small programme for acquiring property and give genuine freedom to councils and housing associations to acquire property in order to let it out to the 1.7 million people in housing need on waiting lists?

Harriet Harman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: the situation in the housing market is a grave cause for concern. That is why the Government have taken action and will take more. That is why we have ensured that the Bank of England has £50 billion to help with the liquidity situation; why we are building more social homes; why we are giving £200 million to the Housing Corporation so that it can buy houses that have been built but have not been able to be sold; and why we are helping first-time buyers by reducing stamp duty. I think that he would agree that the most important thing for housing for the future is to ensure that people can stay in their jobs, that employment remains high, and that inflation and interest rates remain low, and that is what we will attempt to do.

Vincent Cable: I acknowledge that the Housing Corporation proposal is a good one, but it is a drop in the ocean. Can the Government not get their priorities right? Instead of the Prime Minister lecturing us on what we should eat for dinner, and competing with the leader of the Conservative party to be the country's weight watcher-in-chief, should he not acknowledge that we have a deep crisis in the British housing market—probably the worst in our lifetime—which is leading into a serious recession? It is time that the Government accepted responsibility for dealing with it.

Harriet Harman: I agree that the situation is serious, but I do not agree that it is like it was in the 1990s. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that it is important that we keep employment rates high and that we keep interest rates low. Those who are working hard in the construction industry, and in small and big businesses across the country, do not want the official Opposition, or any Opposition Members, to be talking the economy down at this point. Confidence is important.

Clive Efford: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that violent crime involving young people in London is one of the most important issues that confronts the capital? London MPs are contacting the Home Secretary, asking her to take the initiative and bring communities across London together, including young people, to discuss ways of solving this problem. They are doing that because of the woefully inadequate response of the Mayor of London. He was elected on a campaign that highlighted 23 deaths last year—what looked like a slick campaign now looks like a very sick campaign. As a fellow London MP, will my right hon. and learned Friend contact the Home Secretary, to bring together communities across London to find a solution to this very important problem?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do exactly that. We all recognise that there is a serious problem with more young people, at ever younger ages, carrying knives in the street. It is a particular problem, as my hon. Friend said, in London and in my constituency. My constituents know that it is important that we have the right laws and that they are toughly enforced, and beyond that, that we work together to support parents, teachers, local communities and the local police. We have to tackle what we recognise is a growing and grave problem.

Alan Reid: Millions of pensioners have chosen to collect their pensions through the card account at their post office. The contract for the card account must stay with the Post Office after 2010 and should not be given to PayPoint or the banks. When Ministers are asked about the matter, they keep waffling on about commercial issues and legalities. Will the Government please understand that the only organisation with a rural and island network is the Post Office? Will the Government stop dithering, act decisively and give the contract to the Post Office?

Harriet Harman: Strict rules apply to public procurement, and rightly so. As a Minister, I could not be expected to comment in the middle of a contract procurement, but I can remind the House that the Post Office says that it has put in a strong bid for the Post Office card account. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government have put in unprecedented sums of public money to support the post office network, and we will continue to do so.

John Spellar: Given the settled view of Parliament and the public that fox hunting should be banned, is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised that some are still suggesting that they should try to overturn that ban? Can she reassure me that that is not the policy of this Government, and in her reply, could she tempt the Opposition spokesman to make clear what his party's policy is?

Harriet Harman: I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to repeal the ban on fox hunting. This House decided, on a free vote, that fox hunting was cruel and should be banned. I voted in favour of that, and we all want to see the ban properly enforced.

William Hague: Since the Prime Minister's main message on the way to the G8 was indeed not to waste food, does the Leader of the House agree that it is important for Departments to set an example on these things as well?

Harriet Harman: Yes, it is important for Departments to set an example, but whoever the Prime Minister might look to for dietary advice, the last person would be someone who thinks that a good diet is 18 pints a day.

William Hague: None of that was ever wasted, I can assure the right hon. and learned Lady.
	Is it not astonishing, given the Prime Minister's comments, that expenditure at the Treasury—to take a Department at random—on hospitality, including food, in the period when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer more than trebled? Is not that a spectacular case of preaching one rule to the country and practising another behind the closed doors of government?

Harriet Harman: No, I am sure that it is absolutely nothing of the sort.

William Hague: Maybe the Leader of the House can agree with this: is there not something supremely ironic about being lectured about food waste by a Prime Minister who is past his sell-by date? Is not that yet another example of treating people like fools, and of preaching prudence but practising profligacy and waste? Is not that why the whole country is sick of the Prime Minister, and may I speak for the whole House in wishing the right hon. and learned Lady well in her campaign to be rid of him?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the Prime Minister, a man of true grit and determination, who will see the country through the difficult circumstances. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about me, but his suggestion is not possible because there are not enough airports for all the men who would want to flee the country.

Derek Wyatt: In 2020, it looks as though the Chinese economy will overtake the American economy. Yet, ironically, China is not represented in the G8 in Tokyo today. Given that the G8 may expand to become the G14 or the G22 and that we also have the OECD, does it make sense for there to be a merger between the G8—or G14 or G22—and the OECD in the near future?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, the Prime Minister is taking a leading part in the discussions in the G8 today. In Japan today, the G8 is talking to more countries, including China, Brazil, South Africa, India and Mexico as it looks to widen the outreach of its policies in the world. We can expect that approach, in which the Prime Minister will take a lead, to continue in future.

Martin Horwood: My constituency files include two particular cases of serious crimes for which the victims deserve our sympathy and support. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to look into them, and in the process explain why, when our prisons are full to bursting, public finances are under pressure and others are being released early, the two prisoners in those cases are set to join more than 700 others on indeterminate sentences, who are serving more than their sentence tariff and have no prospect of getting into the institutions or on to the courses that will help them reform and enable them to be safely released?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised to the Prime Minister's attention. However, we must recognise that we need to take a tough approach to crime, and we have done that. Crime has fallen since we came into government, and more criminals are being caught and sent to prison for longer terms. That is why we have increased the prison building programme. As well as sending those who have committed offences to prison, we need to try to ensure that, while they are there, they are rehabilitated so that when they leave, they do not commit further offences.

Nigel Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel some concern about the loss of bursaries and grants to low-income students, if the income of a new partner of their parent is taken into account? Will she condemn the impact of that on thousands of students in Scotland, as a result of Scottish National Administration policy?

Harriet Harman: The leader of the Scots nats in Holyrood does not turn up much in this House, although he continues to be a Member and draw his salary. I had the opportunity to see him talking about this issue on television earlier this week. It is absolutely clear that he does not intend to keep his promises on student support, that he does not intend to keep his promises on police numbers and that he does not intend to keep his policies on reducing class sizes. So, scarcely a year after the election, why should anyone trust the SNP with any of its promises?

Andrew George: The Prime Minister knows, because I met him recently to discuss it, that second home purchases outstrip first-time buyers in my area by a factor of three to one. Can the Leader of the House tell us how much it will cost this year to fund the capital gains tax breaks for second home purchases? Does she acknowledge that the thousands of families who are desperate to gain their first home will effectively contribute to that benefit through the abolition of the 10p rate?

Harriet Harman: I shall get the Chancellor to write to the hon. Gentleman with those specific figures. One of the things that is very important for first-time buyers, in addition to the points that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), is that we need to have more house building in this country. That is why we have brought forward our plans for eco-towns. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and other hon. Members who are concerned about the opportunities for first-time buyers will back those plans.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As we celebrate the 60th birthday of the NHS, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating everybody who is celebrating their 60th birthday this year, including Fran Fox from Portsmouth, who not only shares the birthday of the NHS, but has worked for the NHS for 40 years? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hard-working staff are the backbone of the NHS and how does she think it will best survive the next 60 years?

Harriet Harman: I would like to send my congratulations, through my hon. Friend, to Fran Fox, working in the health service in her constituency. The way that we can best ensure the future of the national health service is to ensure that we build on the commitment and dedication that the NHS staff have shown over many decades and that we help them carry on with their remarkable work.

John Baron: Most coups take place when the leader is abroad, as my party is only too aware. Given the Prime Minister's absence today, what help does the right hon. and learned Lady need?

Harriet Harman: What we are concerned about is this. We are in government in order— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman might be in Parliament to ask daft questions, but we are in government in order to understand the concerns that families in every constituency are facing, to recognise the problems and to address them. That is what we are focused on and that is what we will get on with doing.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that this week we are celebrating 30 years of successful in vitro fertilisation. She will also know that the celebration is somewhat less than it should be, because National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines are not being put in place on fertility treatment. Only nine primary care trusts are putting them in place; shamefully, 143 are offering either less treatment or none at all. Will she do all that she can to ensure the full implementation of NICE guidelines, accepting, as every Member of this House does, that all that those people want is to have a happy family?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work as chair of the all-party group on infertility. She has always made it clear that infertility treatment should be available for everyone and not just for those who can afford it, and that its provision on the NHS is important. We recognise that there are inequalities in provision, however. We are monitoring the provision by primary care trusts, and that is something that we need to take forward. This is about people's right to a family life, and there should not be a postcode lottery.

John Randall: I have heard Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, saying many times that there would be no further expansion of Heathrow unless the proposals met strict environmental limits. Will the right hon. and learned Lady therefore tell us why her Government are asking for a derogation on air quality because they cannot meet the air quality controls around London?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport reminds me that we have set out a range of issues, including carbon emissions and air quality, in a number of detailed technical documents for public scrutiny and consultation. We have received many thousands of responses to that consultation, and we will make a decision in due course. In relation to the policy of the official Opposition, half of them are in favour of such proposals because they want economic expansion, while the other half are totally against them. We are ensuring that we build the economy while also protecting the environment.

Fiona Mactaggart: Members on both sides of the House will welcome the tough leadership that the Prime Minister has shown at the G8 on Zimbabwe. I believe that the House is united on that issue. However, there are a number Zimbabweans in Britain who are unable to return to Zimbabwe but who have no source of income. Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Home Secretary whether it would be possible to give Zimbabweans who are trapped in Britain the right to work in order to earn an income, before they return to Zimbabwe when that country is free?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that she will be having meetings about precisely that issue this afternoon. I can reassure my hon. Friend that there will not be any forced removals to Zimbabwe during the current situation. Further to that, the Prime Minister has been leading on the question of seeking to ensure that the votes of people in Zimbabwe at the election, which has been denied by Robert Mugabe, will be respected. Following the discussions at the G8, which has sent forward a strong message about Zimbabwe, further action will be taken at the UN shortly.

John Barrett: Why have this Labour Government chosen to continue the work of the previous Conservative Government this summer, with their plans to decimate the post office network in the city of Edinburgh?

Harriet Harman: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the previous Conservative Government did not put one penny of public money into the post office network, so we are absolutely not continuing their work. On the contrary, we have put £2 billion of public funds into the network already, and we will put in £1.7 billion more in order to sustain the important post office network.

Anne Moffat: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that Fathers 4 Justice does its case absolutely no good by engaging in the thuggery and ridiculous actions that are now taking place. Will she and the rest of the House condemn it and say that it is never going to get its way if it behaves in such a vile manner?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and I agree with her.

Peter Bottomley: May I associate Opposition Members with the remarks that have been made?On the national health service, the Labour party was the third party to agree with the Beveridge proposals. Now, the national health service probably employs more part-timers who will be affected by the 10p tax rate abolition than any other organisation. When are the Government going to ensure that part-time people, especially women, and including those in the health service, get the compensation that the Prime Minister has said will come to them?

Harriet Harman: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Chancellor has already set out the package of £2.7 billion, which will help 22 million people. That will go not only to those who lost out through the abolition of the 10p rate, but also more widely. The thing that has most helped low-paid workers, particularly those who work part time, is the national minimum wage, which the hon. Gentleman voted against.

David Clelland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many working men's clubs and other private clubs in communities up and down the country are struggling, not least because of recently passed legislation that is well-meaning but is nevertheless having a detrimental effect on their operations? Will she agree to convene a meeting of relevant Ministers with the all-party group to discuss how we can keep these clubs as a force for good at the centre of all our communities?

Harriet Harman: I will agree to convene a meeting such as my hon. Friend proposes. I agree that clubs are often at the very heart of their communities and we want to do all we can to support them. In fact, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to take that meeting forward.

Communities in Control

Hazel Blears: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about "Communities in control—Real people, real power", a White Paper that sets out the Government's proposals to pass more influence, power and control to local communities and citizens.
	As we reflect on the founding of the national health service this week and celebrate the achievements of this most civilised of British institutions, it is worth reminding ourselves that the NHS came about because of democratic politics. It is as much a testament to the powerful potential of politics as it is a testament to our common bonds of humanity. Like most noble achievements, the NHS was not a product of a cosy consensus; it was the product of a titanic political struggle.
	Those of us elected to this House would do well to remind ourselves from time to time of the great struggles for democracy in this country. We should remember the ordinary soldiers who stood and debated with their generals at St Mary's church in Putney during the English civil war, the families who gathered at St. Peter's field in Manchester in 1819 to support parliamentary reform and were trampled and killed by the cavalry, the textile workers and miners who met on Kersal moor in my own constituency in 1838, the women who faced prison and even death to win the right to vote in the early part of the last century, and the men and women who fought and defeated fascism 60 years ago.
	Whenever we risk taking our democracy for granted, we should recall the brave men and women on whose shoulders we stand, and give thanks for their fortitude and courage. When we look around the world, from Burma to Zimbabwe, we should recognise that the struggle for democracy is universal and that the drive for people to want to control their own lives is part of human nature.
	This White Paper represents some significant steps forward towards giving local people a greater say over their lives and greater control over the forces and decisions that shape their neighbourhoods. I am convinced that in the coming decades, people will expect and demand much greater power within the political system. There is a tide of history flowing in the direction of greater democracy, and all of us who are part of the political system would do well to understand it, anticipate it and adapt our system to take account of the change that is coming. We are building on the devolution and decentralisation already enacted by this Labour Government—devolution to Scotland, Wales and London, more powers and resources for councils, and more ways for citizens to play an active role—but we need to move further and go faster.
	The White Paper has two broad aims. The first is to rehabilitate local political activity as a worthwhile activity, conducted by decent people in pursuit of noble aims. We cannot function as a democracy without strong local democratic institutions and vibrant political parties in every area. Local authorities have a vital role. There are now many excellent examples of councils being at the heart of local democracy, and that should be the case everywhere.
	Secondly, we must pass more power to local people so that they feel that if they get involved, it will be worth their time and effort. People are perfectly rational. They will get involved if they can see the change that they make, and if they do not, they will soon fall away. People are not apathetic: almost 70 per cent say that they want a bigger say in how the country is run. People want to be involved, but the structures and cultures of politics sometimes alienate them. They are disengaging themselves from the political process because they feel that they lack power. It is also crucial for young people to become involved, because our democracy rests on future generations being part of the process.
	The White Paper will contain measures to enhance local democracy, but the Government are also committed to offering the public more opportunities to influence national decisions. Today the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), will publish a discussion paper providing a national framework for greater citizen engagement and suggesting mechanisms for involving the public in debates and decision making on national issues.
	So what do we propose at local level? First, we want to place a new duty on councils to promote democracy. They will have to run campaigns to register voters, explain voting to local people, work with schools to explain local councillors' roles, and train staff to be able to say which group controls the council, how to register to vote and when the next elections are. Councils should be vibrant hubs of local democracy, not units of local administration. We will allow councils to provide incentives to encourage more people to vote, perhaps entering voters in a prize draw.
	Alongside the White Paper, we are publishing our response to the report by Jane Roberts's Councillors Commission on the barriers and incentives to becoming and remaining a councillor. Many of Jane's ideas are incorporated in the White Paper.
	There will be a range of measures to increase visibility and accountability in local services. We will raise the profile of overview and scrutiny systems, which should be analogous to the Select Committee system at national level. Local public officials will need to appear before regular public hearings, and there will be a new right to petition to
	hold local officers to account at public meetings. There will be a consultation on making it easier to demand a referendum on whether to have a directly elected local mayor—[Hon. Members: "We've had enough of them!"] We shall see. The consultation will be about making it easier to demand a referendum on whether to have a directly elected local mayor, for instance by accepting electronic petitions.
	We are also announcing a review of redress when things go wrong in council services. The review will consider the way in which redress is being used across the public and private sectors, and will make recommendations on how it can be used better in local public services to improve satisfaction and service delivery.
	We support the provision of more councils at community level, such as parish and neighbourhood councils, and will introduce a new right for local people to appeal to the Secretary of State if their council denies them the opportunity to establish a community council. We will introduce a national system to recognise the contribution of councillors who have served two full terms, by giving them the title "Alderman" or "Alderwoman". [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] That is fine. Some Members of Parliament would be entitled to use that title— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the Minister to speak.

Hazel Blears: We will revise the so-called Widdicombe rules, which restrict council officers from political activity, and allow more council officers to engage in political activity if they choose to do so. We will also consult on extending the right to time off for public duties to a broader range of public service roles.
	The Government support the vital democratic contribution of the voluntary sector. We will launch a £70 million communitybuilders scheme to support community organisations. We will also remove some of the barriers preventing faith-based organisations from supplying goods and services to local authorities. There will be a £7.5 million empowerment fund for national third sector organisations to establish innovative schemes, particularly for young people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to gain vital community leadership skills and become involved in planning and social enterprise. My Department's social enterprise unit will be launched in the autumn.
	Petitions have been a well-understood part of our public life for centuries. They represent a recognised method of aggregating views into a single collective voice. They are so simple that even young people and children can take part. Many local authorities handle petitions very well. However, we want all of them to do so at the level of the best, so we will place a duty on councils to respond to all petitions, and if a petition has the support of more than 5 per cent. of the local population there will have to be a debate in full council.
	Petitions will help local people to direct their council to clear away abandoned cars, build a new road crossing, introduce traffic calming measures or deal with an empty property. Councils will also act as community advocates, for example for petitions relating to NHS primary care trusts.
	I am convinced that there is no conflict between representative and participatory forms of democracy. They are mutually reinforcing, and the best councillors are the ones who are in touch with the views of their community. We want to build on the success of participatory budgeting schemes, which allow local people to have a real say over how local investment is made, including in youth, community safety and health budgets.
	We hear many negative things about young people today, and we are told that they have rejected mainstream politics. We need to do far more to harness their energy and their desire for social action and involvement. We will open up Government to young people and support a range of innovative programmes to help them become effective leaders of tomorrow.
	We all understand that not everyone wants to become an active citizen, but none the less there are millions of people in Britain who want to do more for their communities but lack the platform on which to stand. We will transfer more assets—such as community centres, street markets, swimming pools, parks and land—to local community ownership. We want to see more local co-ops and mutually owned groups running local services. A new asset transfer unit will be established to speed this up. We also want to see more social businesses, and we will encourage councils to ensure that social enterprises are able to compete fairly for contracts.
	This White Paper takes us further on our democratic journey, but this is not the last word. We are changing here the terms of the debate. We will continue to strive for greater reform, devolution and accountability, because that is what people increasingly want and demand, and because it is the right thing to do. I commend this White Paper to the House.

Eric Pickles: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me advance sight both of her statement and of this essentially harmless White Paper. Until her statement, I thought I was the one who was advocating "Just say no" to the right hon. Lady, but it appears that her colleagues in the Home Office and the Department of Health have taken the very life out of these proposals, and have found it remarkably easy just to say no to Hazel.
	May I rise to the right hon. Lady's defence and support a number of the measures in this document? We agree that there is a strong case for more city mayors where they are supported by local people. The hurdle for a community to get one is far too restrictive, but as the people of Bury decided last week, local choice must be paramount. However, why is the right hon. Lady so timid in allowing mayors just to join police and crime reduction partnerships? Why does she not go all the way and give them real control over policing?
	The right hon. Lady calls for online petitions, but if she is such a supporter of e-democracy, why is her Department axing all funding for the International Centre of Excellence for Local eDemocracy? Does she not appreciate that that centre has been instrumental in helping local community groups and parish councils establish and publish community websites, and that it is the only organisation offering impartial advice?
	We support devolving the management of services to local groups, and the strengthening of social enterprise is very welcome. However, a rag-bag of proposals is no substitute for policy. Does the right hon. Lady not understand that there is a contradiction in stripping local authorities of real powers in planning, housing and waste and transferring them to an unaccountable quango, and in replacing them with a few toys, few of which will see the light of day? It is less than a year since the last local government Act received Royal Assent. How many of the community provisions from that Act have commenced, and why has the community call for action introduced way back in the Police and Justice Act 2006 never been implemented?
	The right hon. Lady mentioned that in order to encourage people to vote, their names will be entered into a prize draw. Will she confirm that the booby prize for such a draw would be a Labour councillor, especially when, under a scheme announced on page 137 of the White Paper, she suggests that councillors should be allowed to vote in meetings from the comfort of their armchairs, without being put to the inconvenience of meeting a voter? That is hardly an inducement for people to vote.
	The Secretary of State calls for residents to be given a £10 rebate on their rubbish if it is not collected on the right day, but that pales in comparison with the £75 fines issued by Government bin bullies for putting out rubbish the evening before collection or—heaven forbid—not shutting the bin lid correctly. What is the point of a £10 rebate on a missed bin when families face £200 charges on top of their council tax?
	I know that the Labour party is having difficulty finding candidates, but allowing staff to become councillors is partisan. It would be a return to the sweetheart deals in which officers and councillors swapped roles on a tit-for-tat basis. Such examples of jobs for the boys brought so much corruption to local government. This is jobs for the boys masquerading as human rights. We believe that it is in the public interest for the roles of officer and councillor to be separated, and we will make reversing the Secretary of State's policy a high priority after a change of Government. Will she ensure that any officer who takes advantage of this arrangement understands that after the law is reversed, they will have to either find alternative employment or create a by-election by the next annual round? We will also oppose her desire to reintroduce propaganda on the rates.
	If petitions are to play a more important role, does the Secretary of State realise that listening to them will be all the more important? The Government have ignored petitions on post office closures, polyclinics, a referendum on the European treaty and the congestion charge. What is the point in a council having a duty to respond to petitions if it has been stripped of its powers to make any difference? The Government have stripped away local accountability in planning, housing and waste. They have created a democratic deficit that this White Paper is inadequate to fix.
	The Secretary of State started with a reference to the Putney debates and the Peterloo massacre, and ended by offering the inducements of a scratchcard for voting and the title of alderman for ex-councillors. That the Government should come to this is genuinely and truly sad.

Hazel Blears: I welcome the damascene conversion of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) to having more city mayors. I can only presume that he has been under intense pressure from the leader of his party, who has been a champion of having more mayors. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has seen the light and decided that that form of leadership is the right approach.
	I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for some of the powers for the voluntary sector, but it is this Government who are providing resources, back-up and support to the sector in partnership, instead of seeking to push services on to the voluntary sector as an abdication of local and central Government responsibility to provide services for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of police and crime. My White Paper contains a reference to an increased role for mayors in addressing crime and community safety. He will see much more detail in the police Green Paper, which is likely to be published shortly. We mean to ensure that local people have much more say on crime, and on health, in which they also have a significant interest.
	The hon. Gentleman will also see that the White Paper contains models for increasing primary care trust accountability. Those are very interesting and will be welcomed by local people who are keen to see commissioning in the health service take place at local level, so that they can influence it more.
	The hon. Gentleman also welcomed the development of social enterprise and asset transfer. Again, he talks the talk, but it is this Government who are turning that into reality, with massive programmes in the health sector to encourage social enterprise. GP practices are increasingly adopting a social enterprise model. A GP practice close to me now provides appointments first thing in the morning at 7.15, and late night appointments at 8.30. That is what the public want to see, and that is why we have to be more adventurous in the models that we adopt.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of councillors being able to vote remotely. This is a consultation, but all our parties desperately need better, higher-quality people to come forward as candidates. People often have responsibilities to manage in their homes and family lives. If someone represents a rural area, it often takes them a tremendous amount of time to get to meetings. We have to be braver. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to have a little courage, a bit of imagination and a little creativity. His recipe is simply for more of the same, but the turnout in the last set of local elections was 35 per cent. Even in the London mayoral election it was only 45 per cent. Unless we are prepared to have courage and convictions and to do things differently, we will see this disaffection and disengagement from local politics continue, to the detriment of all our political parties and of democracy in this country.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Widdicombe changes. I do not think that it is fair for a highways engineer who does not advise the council and has no role on policy, but earns £33,000 a year, to be barred from any democratic political activity because of that. It sends out the wrong message. It is right to correct that situation, which was caused by the previous Government.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that we had stripped powers away from local government, and that if we gave it more powers, that would be the answer.  [ Interruption. ] Let me just say this to the hon. Gentleman: he seems to have had a bout of amnesia. In the past 12 months, we have reduced the number of national targets from 1,200 to fewer than 200. We have negotiated local area agreements and there are £5 billion-worth of un-ring-fenced funds. We have given local authorities the right, through the duty to co-operate, to draw together health, police, local councils and Jobcentre Plus, and we have given them excellent new tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is one area where local councils can make a difference, and that is where they need to put their efforts.

David Blunkett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on her proposals but on her energy, commitment and advocacy, her bottom-up approach and her drive to empower local people. I reassure her that the shadow Secretary of State was entirely wrong when he proclaimed that it was easy to say no to Hazel; I have never found it easy to say no to her. I hope that my colleagues will not, either.
	I welcome the new money and resources to empower local people through capacity building at local level and through community leadership. Will she say a little more about whether that could be used to reinforce the experiment of guide communities, so that those who have been so successful in neighbourhood renewal could spread their best practice to other parts of the country and ensure that in reality people can take control of their lives and futures, from the bottom up?

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend has a lot of previous history on this agenda, from as long ago as when he was a local councillor in Sheffield seeking to empower local people. I can certainly assure him that the £70 million communitybuilders fund and the £7.5 million empowerment fund will be about increasing people's capacity to participate in decisions and shape their own future.
	He knows, as I do, of the excellent work at Perry Common in Birmingham, in Balsall Heath, in the Goodwin Development Trust in Hull and in our communities where local people are striving, sometimes against the odds. It is about time that national Government got behind those local people and gave them the ability to reach the potential that they undoubtedly have.

Julia Goldsworthy: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the White Paper and of her statement this morning, and also for the advance notice of the proposals, which have been trailed for the past six months. Although a lot is already in the public domain, I am not sure whether all her Back Benchers feel involved in the process and empowered as a result of the policies.
	This is something that has been hyped for quite a long time, and it is difficult to see what the fuss is about. There is little to disagree with, because the proposals are so limited in scope, ambition and vision. The fact that the Secretary of State drew parallels with historic struggles for democracy was quite tasteless, and threw into relief the timidity of her proposals. How can she compare e-petitions with people who made the ultimate sacrifice to try to achieve democracy?
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that many local councils, many of which are Liberal Democrat, are many steps ahead in this process? For example, Newcastle is already undertaking participatory budgeting involving people as young as three. Kingston council has a petition power, whereby petitions lead to debates in the chamber. When will the Government make proposals to do the same in this place? Councils already transfer assets to different community groups, but that is often used as a way of palming off white elephants and getting rid of financial liability. How is that innovative and new?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that there is nothing in the proposals to undo the damage inflicted on local authorities and communities by this centralising Government? Is not the introduction of a duty to promote democracy in councils an admission that the withdrawal of power and resources from local government has disempowered communities and reduced voter turnout? Today's proposals are trying to treat the symptom, not the cause. Many of my constituents have been more than happy to participate in the parish planning process, but they have been turned off by the inability to turn any of their proposals into reality.
	Of course it is important that councils share best practice so that all members of the community are involved in decision making. That should happen not just through endless, fruitless consultation but through getting people involved in setting priorities and making decisions. Today seems to me to be about adding a new buzz word, "involvement", to the local government lexicon, alongside "consultation", "engagement" and "empowerment". It will not be enough to convince people that their views will have an impact on centrally imposed Government decisions on subjects from eco-towns to post offices.
	Have the Government learned their lesson? If so, why are there no measures to close the accountability gap in so many unaccountable regional and powerful quangos, such as regional development agencies, strategic health authorities, learning and skills councils and primary care trusts? Should not other Departments have a duty to be involved in putting communities in control?
	Why is no duty to devolve placed on the Government? There is endless scope for resources and decisions to be pushed away from Whitehall. The statement would have been an opportunity to do that, but it has been missed. Finally, why was there nothing in the statement about implementing the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which was the result of a grass-roots campaign to put bottom-up decisions in control? Why is there nothing about giving councils control over their finances so that they are not dependent on Whitehall handouts? If the Government believed in devolution, they would put their money where their mouth is.
	The test will be whether people wake up tomorrow, or next year, and suddenly feel that their world has been revolutionised by today's White Paper. Does the Secretary of State think that she has achieved that? Unfortunately, I think not.

Hazel Blears: If the real test of any announcement was that people would wake up within 24 hours and feel that their world had been revolutionised, that would be a fairly high test for anybody. I entirely accept that this is part of a journey, as I said in my statement. It is not the last word. Over the next few decades, the tide of politics will mean that people will want more involvement, control and power. It is up to us to try to facilitate that process.
	I agree with the hon. Lady that many local authorities are doing excellent work on this agenda, with a lot of support and back-up from the Department, whether through participatory budgeting or the transfer of assets. That is confounding people's scepticism about the agenda, as it is shown to work in practice. I want to try to ensure that the rest of the local authorities learn from that practice, adopt it and get that tide, swell and critical mass of people who can make a difference. Then we will see the change. We will see that people's lives are very different once everybody is doing that as a matter of course.
	The hon. Lady talked about putting our money where our mouth is, but there are significant funds in this White Paper, particularly for the voluntary and community sector, to encourage sustainability. One of the sector's biggest complaints is that it has to go round every 12 months looking for funding from local authorities, and is in a supplicant position, going round with a begging bowl. If we can get the sector to stand independently with community land trusts, with co-operatives, with social enterprises, and with independent income streams, that will be a prize for our communities. The hon. Lady talked about the assets being transferred as a white elephant—but I have made it clear that this is about the jewels in the crown, not simply about things that are failing, because I want people to succeed with this agenda.
	Finally, the hon. Lady said that there was little to disagree with in the White Paper. I am not surprised. This is the right thing to do, because people want to see it happen. Our responsibility is to try to ensure that it happens across the country. I draw her attention to page 28. When she gets to read the document, she will see that that extends the duty to involve to a range of organisations, including the police, the regional development agencies, which spend billions of pounds of public money, Jobcentre Plus and a range of other organisations.

Ronnie Campbell: The Secretary of State has talked about local democracy, but I remind her what happened in Northumberland. We had a referendum on introducing a two-tier unitary authority, a proposal which gained about 57 per cent. of the vote. Unfortunately, the Department in which she was then a Minister forced a single unitary authority on us. Where is the democracy in that?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend will accept that the unitary authority proposals came from communities and local authorities. They were not imposed from the top, with central Government saying, "You must have unitary authorities." Communities were asked whether they wanted to put forward proposals on local governance, so that the proposals could be tested to see which would be the most effective. Obviously, decisions were made in respect of the local authorities to which he has referred, but the process was from the bottom up.

David Curry: The statement resembles an extremely cheap cup of cappuccino, with a huge amount of froth but no detectable coffee—I suppose that the next proposal will give people air miles for voting. Leaving that aside, will the Secretary of State assert very clearly that local democracy depends on people being representative? It does not matter how low down an organisation is, or how small the assets that it is managing, the line of accountability to representative bodies must be very clear. Will she assert that principle, as waste is waste, whether it involves £20 billion, which is what the Government specialise in, or tuppence-ha'penny?

Hazel Blears: I absolutely confirm that the White Paper places an emphasis on the representative democracy that is at the heart of our democratic system. Over the past 12 months, I have been trying to establish that involving more people in more decisions is not a threat to representative democracy, but a chance to strengthen it. I am worried that political systems are becoming remote from ordinary people, who feel that it is difficult to break into them. I want to make sure that people feel more connected and that politicians in their communities are listening to what they say and acting accordingly. That is vital, if we are to rebuild the bonds of trust, which the right hon. Gentleman, like me, considers to be extremely important to our democracy.

Dennis Skinner: In the past, battles were fought and blood was spilled to get the vote and for collective responsibility, but I know of no evidence that people have quarrelled even once in any high street in Britain about having a lord mayor. People did not fight for something that is the very opposite of collective responsibility—it is nothing more than an example of the development of the cult of personality. If my right hon. Friend wants to help local government and get more people to participate, she should ensure that some of the power taken from local authorities over about 35 years is handed back to people who are elected. As for e-petitions, may I caution her that they do not amount to collective responsibility? They are more like instant gratification, which, sadly, pervades every element of our society.

Hazel Blears: As ever, my hon. Friend makes some important and considered points. The proposal on e-petitioning will be subject to consultation, as I am conscious that we do not want a one-click democracy. It is important that issues are debated as well. He has said that there has been no debate about lord mayors, but we are talking about elected mayors with executive authority—

Dennis Skinner: I know what we are talking about.

Hazel Blears: I know that my hon. Friend understands that—

Dennis Skinner: The problem is that they call themselves lord mayors when they get in.

Hazel Blears: There are only 12 in the whole country at present, so it is difficult to draw broad lessons. However, on Tuesday I was in Lewisham with young people and their directly elected mayor, whom they see as "our mayor" and with whom they have a personal relationship. I know that this area is controversial, but people who want a bigger say want a directly elected representative. Accountability must be very transparent indeed, and people need to know that the person turning the vision for their community into action is someone for whom they voted at the ballot box. They must be able to call that person to account. That is the inevitable tide of politics.

Douglas Carswell: The Government are right to recognise the need for more direct democracy and radically to devolve power to local people. However, does the White Paper contain measures to devolve control over local government finance to local people or to ensure locally accountable police chiefs? Does it contain a right of initiative, rather than merely a right to petition and trigger town hall talk? Without such steps, the White Paper just pays lip service to localism—it does not have the Levellers behind it, so much as Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is on the enthusiastic wing of his party when it comes to local democracy, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) necessarily agrees with all his proposals. As I said earlier on police accountability, the White Paper contains a commitment to establishing a directly elected element in the police system. The details will be spelled out in the police Green Paper. Where there is a mayor, they will assume the role of the directly elected person in the police system, which is a significant step forward towards greater transparency and accountability.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be more local influence on local government finance, and that debate will no doubt run and run. We recently signed a concordat with the Local Government Association that for the first time sets out the rights and responsibilities of central Government and local government. Again, that is a significant step forward. As I said earlier, in the past 12 months there has been a significant move towards giving people at the local level more space to do what they really want and freeing up local councils to respond accordingly.
	As for local initiatives and referendums, local people can petition for participatory budgeting. That is a big step forward in the devolution of power, and the White Paper contains details about the community justice initiatives that we want to pursue. Under them, local people will get the right to vote on high-visibility community punishments. That approach is being piloted in Liverpool and Salford, and it is proving a great success.

Lynda Waltho: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and the White Paper. The ideas on empowerment and holding councillors and officers to account will be welcomed in Stourbridge, where Tory-controlled Dudley council has closed leisure centres, schools and libraries with no consultation. This week, the council has cut services to the elderly and doubled the price of meals on wheels, also without consultation. Will she undertake to come to my constituency to see the damage done by the Tory-controlled council and to show Dudley how to clean up its act?

Hazel Blears: I should be delighted to visit my hon. Friend's area to discuss what action can be taken on those very serious matters. The White Paper's ideas on petitioning and calling for action from councillors will increase local people's ability to force matters to be debated in public and to secure a proper response. They will empower her local community in a way that is markedly different from what happens at present.

Alan Beith: When the right hon. Lady spoke about the NHS and consensus, she seemed to overlook the point that the proposals carried through by the Labour Government were originally put forward by my Liberal predecessor as MP for Berwick, Sir William Beveridge. Why is today's statement mainly about rules for the conduct of council business and not about transferring power from central Government to local government? Is her Department still dominated by the attitude described by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell)? He pointed out that, when Northumberland people voted for what they wanted, the Government gave them the opposite.

Hazel Blears: This White Paper is about transferring power to citizens and communities. It does not profess to be about transferring power to local authorities. In 2006-07, the White Paper and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 amounted to a dramatic shift, with local area agreements freeing up councils through grants that are not ring-fenced. The council thus became the central, democratically elected organisation co-ordinating the whole range of public services, which represented a significant degree of devolution from the centre to the locality. The focus of the White Paper is to ensure that part of the deal is completed, meaning that if there is to be more devolution to local authorities, which there should be, they have a responsibility to devolve power more and more to local people and communities, so that they, too, absolutely feel part of our revived and more vibrant democracy.

Tony Wright: Apart from the proposals for referendums on directly elected mayors, does my right hon. Friend think that there is a role for the greater use of local referendums in respect of putting people in control?

Hazel Blears: Yes; there is a provision for neighbourhood councils to hold local polls, and I want to do more work to find out the appropriate area in which to exercise those powers. The powers are a bit arcane—the polls have to take place before 4 pm for some very ancient reason—and it is time that we looked at the rules. The polls should also be about relatively local issues, on which people will clearly hold strong views, but there is room for the consideration of how we might develop more techniques, so that people can have a say. The issue is not only about participation, but about voting on the priorities and issues that matter to people.

Gary Streeter: I commend the Secretary of State on planting in an otherwise slightly disappointing statement a pearl of great value, namely the removal of barriers in local communities to faith-based organisations providing goods and services. Does she agree that, if properly implemented, it will unleash a great well of energy, passion and love for people, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society? I encourage her to implement the proposals as quickly as possible.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that welcome. The issue is controversial for some people, but I personally feel that many people are motivated by faith of all kinds to do great acts of social good, and if we miss out on that, we will miss out on a lot of talent and energy. However, I am concerned to ensure that if faith groups become involved, they do so on a proper footing—not by evangelising or proselytising, but by providing services in a non-discriminatory way to the whole community. I intend to work on a charter. Faithworks has a similar one, which is very simple and straightforward, but which makes those points very clearly.

Peter Soulsby: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her statement and on the White Paper, because the measures in it are probably the most important steps towards strengthening local democracy and communities for a considerable period. Does she agree that it is particularly important to strengthen and value both the work of locally elected councillors and their scrutiny role? For far too long, the role has been seen as a job that is done by those who do not make it into the council's cabinet or executive, but that work needs to be properly supported, valued and rewarded.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend Leicester city council on some of the steps that it has taken in respect of the agenda, which have been very impressive indeed. He will find in the White Paper a section on overview and scrutiny, setting out how I want to ensure that the role is strengthened and regarded almost as a Select Committee, with similar powers to take evidence, to call people to account and to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability. Councillors who take on the role also need more training and support, because it is still relatively new, and some of them would benefit from sharing the experience that we have gained in the House. I am absolutely determined to ensure that the overview and scrutiny role is seen not as a second-best option, but as one of the most important jobs on any local authority.

Brian Binley: The Secretary of State has said that local government is vital, and I am sure that we all agree. However, the Government removed planning powers from local authorities in my constituency and set up a quango that paid little attention to local opinion. Is she now saying that she will scrap that quango and restore those powers to local authorities? If she is not, this White Paper will not be worth the paper it is printed on.

Hazel Blears: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to our debate just last week about the independent planning commission. He will know that during the debate, it was made very clear that local authorities would retain their powers over the vast majority of planning applications, and that the commission would deal with those major infrastructure projects that are important for the future of this country as a whole.

Brian Binley: Sustainable communities.

Hazel Blears: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to sustainable communities and the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, he will find that, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) has said, there is a reference in the White Paper to the Act's implementation, which will obviously form part of the framework for the future.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that voting and elections are healthy and important parts of the democratic process, but that they are not democracy itself, which is a much wider concept. She will be aware that what matters most to most people is what happens outside their front doors—in their block of flats and on their streets and estates. She will also recognise that in deprived areas, where there are the fewest facilities and the poorest conditions, there is a real lack of accountability, local control and influence over what goes on. Does she agree that councillors and council officials are often, but not always, the community development workers who are best at empowering estates to control their own environments? And will she ensure that councillors and council officials are brought on board for the emancipation of those people who are least able to express their views and influence the state of their community?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend, like several Members, has a tremendous record not only on empowering his community, but on his work with the Community Development Foundation. I am more than happy to confirm that, in the White Paper again, there are a number of proposals for us to work not only with the foundation, which will play a central role, but with a range of organisations to increase capacity and help our communities to develop. One thing that I am keen to do is to ensure that ordinary council officers, such as housing officers and planners, work in a way that builds the capacity of the local community. It should not always be a job for a specialist; it should be part of the day job.

Anne Main: Some aspects of the Secretary of State's announcement were statements of the blindingly obvious. I cannot believe that she can say, "We must give more power to the people, so that they feel that if they get involved it will be worth their time and effort." People are perfectly rational, and they get involved if they can see any point to it. If, during a consultation in my community, my constituents were offered option A and option B, and option A was 34 and option B was also 34, there would be little point in getting involved. I am referring to a consultation on the single-issue revision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which the Government foisted on the east of England. People do not get involved because hundreds—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Lady that we are talking about one supplementary. There was a movement from local government to Travellers, and that is too many questions, so I shall let the Secretary of State answer.

Hazel Blears: Consultation and involvement should involve dialogue and conversation, and my experience is that people who want to get involved do not necessarily expect to get 100 per cent. of what they want. They want people to be properly engaged and to achieve some change as a result of their involvement, so it is important for local authorities to enter into dialogue with people with a view not only to listening to what they say, but to acting on it. People will not keep getting involved if they keep getting rebuffed. That is a very important message, and I can see that the hon. Lady agrees.

Andrew Gwynne: Is it not the case that properly engaging with local communities on issues that matter empowers local councillors and councils? I commend to the Secretary of State the excellent and fully resourced scrutiny function at Tameside metropolitan borough council and its district assemblies, where it has already devolved decision making, staff and budgets to community level. That is in stark contrast with Stockport, where the authorities have done everything to obstruct the Friends of Reddish Baths, which wants to reopen under community management that much- loved and well cherished community facility.

Hazel Blears: Again, my hon. Friend has a great record on supporting his community. He also has a four-star, excellent local council—it is one of the best in the north-west—that is not afraid to devolve power to the community. We often find that the best councils are the most confident with that agenda, because they see community involvement not as a threat, but as a means of strengthening the way in which they actively represent their area.

Andrew Turner: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the majority on a council should also form the majority on the scrutiny committee, or should the opposition have responsibility for scrutiny committees?

Hazel Blears: Very often in local authorities, scrutiny is led by the opposition, and clearly that is a matter for local authorities to determine. In this House, Select Committees are chaired by a variety of people. Often, it is best practice to be able to drill into the policies. Now that there is to be a cabinet structure, there is an even greater requirement for scrutiny to be very active and rigorous. I would like scrutiny increasingly to involve the local community. There is provision to co-opt local people on to scrutiny committees and to take evidence from the community, which is a measure that I commend.

Jeff Ennis: I ask my question as a great supporter of town and parish councils, as a former town councillor and as a former town mayor for Brierley and Grimethorpe town council. The Secretary of State will know that in certain areas people have overwhelmingly voted to abolish the local parish council in a parish poll. Under the existing system, it is virtually impossible to achieve that objective. In the White Paper, will she look at that very difficult issue in detail and come up with some recommendations?

Hazel Blears: There are 70,000 local town and parish councillors, so they are a very important part of our local democracy. I have been working hard with them over the past 12 months to try to get the quality parish council agreement, to try to enact the well-being power and to make sure that such councils have more powers to involve local people. I will certainly look into the issue that my hon. Friend has raised to see whether we can come up with practical proposals.

Nick Hurd: I wholly support the principle that local people should have much more influence over the decisions that shape the future of their communities. Indeed, that is the whole premise of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which my co-sponsors and I took through Parliament with broad cross-party support. However, I am concerned about the number of new devolutionary Bills that local authorities are having to process at the same time. There was local government legislation and the 2007 Act, and now there is the new White Paper. Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Department is doing to present those three strands of legislation in a coherent, integrated package that will inspire, not alienate, local authorities?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. White Papers are never, and should never be, the end product of what we do, so implementation will be key. I am very focused on that. We are talking about quite a significant change. It will work best if local authorities feel that they own the process, want to champion it and feel that it will make them stronger in their communities. He makes a very good point about taking an integrated approach across those pieces of legislation. At some point, we will see the proposals in the police Green Paper, and the issues and arrangements resulting from the NHS constitution. With regard to local communities, we really need to get to the point where there is an integrated offer across the public services. We need an integrated way in which local people can be involved that is not complicated or bureaucratic, but that really bites and makes a difference. My personal challenge is to try to make sure that that is coherent and inspiring to local authorities, so that they will want to take the agenda forward.

David Clelland: I am an honorary alderman of Gateshead council—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—an honour conferred on me because of my long service to the council, so local authorities already have such powers. I am not sure why the Secretary of State has proposed to centralise those powers. I am always filled with trepidation when Ministers start telling local government how to go about its business—I have seen that from both sides of the House—so I shall study her proposals with interest. Will she guarantee that any new powers, responsibilities or duties placed on local authorities as a result of her White Paper will be fully funded from the centre by Ministers in the Departments responsible?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has extensive experience of local government, as do a number of people in the House, including myself. I think that I am one of the relatively few members of the Cabinet who has been a local authority councillor. Indeed, I have also been a local authority officer, so I am a real champion of local government. He made a point about ensuring that there are no new burdens, which is the phrase that we use, and I certainly give him an undertaking that across Government we will make absolutely sure that when we ask local government to do new things, local government has the finance to do them.

Edward Timpson: The Secretary of State will recall my predecessor's clear view of the Secretary of State's decision, and her Department's decision, about the future of local government in Cheshire. If the Secretary of State believes so strongly in local democracy, why did she split the county of Cheshire in two, despite the view overwhelmingly taken by local people in a referendum, and dramatically reduce the number of democratically elected local councillors in the process?

Hazel Blears: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there were a range of views on the proposals, and those views were held strongly by a number of Members. He will know that my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Christine Russell), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) all supported a two-unitary-authority solution to issues in Cheshire. I entirely acknowledge that people held strong views, but there were a variety of such views. The proposals came from people in those areas, and the change was not dictated from the centre. We asked people to put forward proposals, which were tested against a number of criteria. Clearly, the option of having two unitaries in Cheshire met those criteria in a way that was most effective for leadership, strategic vision and community engagement at a local level.

Anne Snelgrove: I commend my right hon. Friend for her very strong statement, but there is a great deal of cynicism among local people in Swindon, because they do not feel properly represented. They are particularly concerned about a weak local plan that leaves the people of Eastcott very vulnerable to houses in multiple occupation. Will her White Paper help them? Constituents are also concerned about Coate water, a much-loved beauty spot that is threatened by building next door, which is being undertaken by the local council, and about their heritage buildings, such as the Mechanics institute. They feel helpless, because they feel that they are not fully represented. How can they be involved, through her new work, in saving their way of life, and their much-loved land and buildings?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, the people of Swindon have a formidable champion in their Member of Parliament. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised those issues with me. A number of measures can be used. Certainly, the petition powers proposed in the White Paper will ensure that local people can raise the issues, get them debated, and obtain an explanation of the policies. The participatory budgeting powers will enable them to have more of a say in how local authority budgets are spent. The proposals on community justice will give the people whom she represents the right to have a bigger say on community punishments. Those are tangible, practical, real-life issues that I hope will engage more people in the democratic process. Who knows—she may be able to get some new candidates whom she can support to come forward for her local authority.

Philip Hollobone: As a councillor on Kettering borough council, may I say that there will be huge concern throughout the borough of Kettering about the Secretary of State's proposals to allow council officers to participate in party political activity? Local residents rightly value the impartiality of local government officers, just as the British people rightly value the impartiality of the civil service. It seems to a lot of people that the Government are trying to blur the edges on that important issue.

Hazel Blears: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right and proper, in a modern, 21st-century democracy, that someone over a certain salary level who plays no role at all in advising the council, but who simply happens to be employed by the council by virtue of their contract of employment—the example that I gave was a highways engineer—should be barred from any kind of political activity? I do not.

Mark Francois: The answer to the right hon. Lady's question is yes. It is an important facet of our local democracy that council officers, particularly senior officers, are seen to be politically neutral and to provide neutral advice to councillors. The so-called Widdicombe rules have ensured that for many years, so is it not rather a sad day when the party of Government is so desperate to find candidates in southern England that they have to tamper with those well-established rules, which keep the jobs of councillor and of officer firmly apart?

Hazel Blears: No. It is a sad day when people are prepared to impose draconian rules barring individuals from political activity. That sends out the message that we are not proud of party political activity and that we do not feel that it is noble and reputable. There is far too much of that in our democracy at the moment, and it is about time that we stood up and said that being involved in the politics of any party is a noble undertaking pursued by decent people on all sides. We ought to be just a little bit more proud of political activity in our democracy.

Cannabis Seeds (Prohibition)

Tom Brake: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of cannabis seeds; and for connected purposes.
	In recent months, cannabis and its use have been in the news regularly because of concerns about the impact on mental health of skunk, a more potent type of cannabis, and because the Government would like cannabis to be reclassified from a class C to a class B drug. I should point out that I do not support the Government's bid to reclassify cannabis. They should have accepted the findings of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which recognised that cannabis was dangerous but stated that it was not as dangerous as other drugs in category B.
	However, I support totally any Government attempt to plug a huge hole in the legislation on cannabis—the lack of any restrictions on the sale of drugs paraphernalia and cannabis seeds. That is the purpose of the Bill. I can give a simple illustration of the consequences of that absence of legislation. If Members come to Wallington, I will show them Your High, a shop trading legally in drugs paraphernalia and cannabis seeds. It is around the corner from a primary school and down the road from a secondary school. It was brought to my attention by parents and the head teacher of the primary school, and shortly afterwards by the head of the secondary school and by local churches.
	With the help of the head teacher, Mrs. Ramsay, and one of the local councillors, Jayne McCoy, I organised a meeting for parents, governors, the local police and the head teacher, and about 50 people attended. I am sure that Members can anticipate parents' concerns: the shop's location, its trade and, perhaps most importantly, its message that there is no difference between a shop that sells flowers or repairs TVs and one that sells drugs paraphernalia. Someone can pop to the corner shop for a pint or to their local drugs paraphernalia shop to pick up a bong. Is that really a message that we want young children to absorb? Certainly not according to the 500 or so local people who have so far signed a petition against the shop.
	The shop's message is not subtle. If its business is not clear from its name and from the very large cannabis leaves displayed in the window, one need only look through the front door, which is open at most times of the day, to get a clearer understanding of its trade.
	I have been asked whether the council's planning department can do something about the shop. I established very quickly in correspondence with the local council that the answer, astonishingly, is no. The shop is trading legally, and as the unit was previously used for retail purposes as a fireworks shop, which was only marginally less unpopular, planning had no say in the matter. Ironically, there was a possibility of taking action against the shop for failing to apply for planning permission for its neon lights, but not for selling pipes and other drugs paraphernalia.
	What about the police? What can they do? In an exchange with a helpful police constable from the safer neighbourhood team, I established, again very quickly, that the police can only monitor the shop and hope that its owner or one of his customers breaks the law. They cannot even enforce an age restriction on those entering the shop. The owner voluntarily displays an "18s only" sign, but no licensing requirements are in force. Theoretically, anyone of any age can enter the shop and make a purchase.
	When I raised the matter of Your High with the Home Office, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), wrote:
	"I would like to make clear that the Government deplores the sale of any drug paraphernalia which may encourage or promote drug misuse."
	That is exactly what the shop is doing. The Government have acknowledged that there is a gaping hole in the legal framework, which is why the Home Office has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers, as stated in the letter to me, to
	"identify new approaches that the Police, local authorities and other partner agencies can use to control these types of premises and where necessary shut them down".
	The Government have tasked ACPO with conducting a review of legislation to identify whether there is any scope for using it to restrict the activities of Your High and other shops like it. Wallington is not the only place in the country that is blessed with such an establishment. Other such shops are trading in Brighton, in our neighbouring Sutton and elsewhere up and down the country. I discussed that legislative review with Ken Jones, the president of ACPO, and it would be fair to say that ACPO is sceptical about the approach. It believes that if the necessary legislation were already on the statute book, someone—a local authority or the police—would have identified a way of using it. In all likelihood, therefore, new legislation will be required.
	My ten-minute Bill would partly plug the gap by bringing cannabis seeds within the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which refers only to cannabis and cannabis resin. That would be a minor legal adjustment, and a definition of cannabis seeds could easily be added to that Act. There is no confusion about what constitutes cannabis seeds, certainly not among retailers who are selling seeds on the net. Any Member can simply type "sale of cannabis seeds" into Google and come up with a wide range of seeds, which they may or may not care to purchase, from sellers such as Almighty Seeds, Big Buddha Seeds and Dutch Passion.
	Banning drugs paraphernalia, which I could have attempted to bring within the scope of the Bill, would be more complicated. When I dropped into Your High, the manager pointed out that the papers that are used to roll cannabis joints are also on sale in newsagents. A definition of drugs paraphernalia would need to cover goods sold not just in shops such as Your High but in other outlets. ACPO's review might provide some clarity on that definition, which could help us to tighten the law in future.
	My purpose today is simple: to prohibit the sale of cannabis seeds. That minor change to the law would send a major message and ensure consistency between the law on the sale of drugs such as cannabis and the law on the sale of cannabis seeds, which help people to grow their own. I urge Members to support the Bill.

Paul Flynn: The Bill will appeal to most Members, and it is certainly well intentioned, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that it would have many unintended consequences for a group of people that he has not mentioned: the thousands in this country who use cannabis for medicinal purposes. There have been Bills before the House that would have allowed cannabis to be prescribed. Frequently when I speak on the subject, some newspapers link the fact that I have arthritis to my enthusiasm for legalising medicinal cannabis. There is no connection. I have never in my life used an illegal drug, and I have no intention of using one.
	One drug that was recommended to me, and which many people used, was Vioxx. It was a COX-2 inhibitor and pain reliever that was prescribed more than 1 million times in this country before it was discovered to have caused 150,000 heart attacks and strokes in another country. The merit of cannabis, which has been used as a medicine for more than 5,000 years on every continent, is that all its side effects and problems were discovered through experience many years ago.
	Thousands of people in this country choose to grow their own cannabis. I am happy to reflect on the fact that only 12 ten-minute Bills, I think, have become law in the past 25 years, so it is unlikely that this one will, but the Government might be persuaded to go down a similar path. If it were to become law, those people would have to move to the criminal market. At the moment, they are doing something perfectly legal. They can buy their seeds on the internet, in other countries or in shops such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which are fairly rare. If they do so and grow their own, they know the quality and strength of the cannabis that they take when they engage in a perfectly harmless activity that gives pain relief to people, particularly those suffering from multiple sclerosis, who find that the chemical drugs that are available to them cause terrible problems, including nausea and all kinds of serious side effects. People have come to demonstrate at Parliament in the past 12 months, showing that they want the law to be changed. If the law is changed, and a simple Bill is introduced to differentiate between the recreational and medicinal use of cannabis, the hon. Gentleman's Bill might be appropriate. However, this Bill would plunge people into fear, in the knowledge that the only way in which they will be able to continue to use cannabis—their medicine of choice—will be to move into the illegal market.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly said that he was against the irrational proposal to move cannabis from class C to class B, but I am sure that that will happen. As a result, the maximum sentence for possessing cannabis—and, presumably, for possessing seeds—will go up from two to five years. We would be doing that in the knowledge that we do not have a single prison that is free of the open use of heroin and cocaine to which to send anyone who is convicted. They could go to prison as an MS sufferer using their medicine of choice—as a cannabis user—and come out in five years' time as a heroin addict.
	As a result of the hon. Gentleman's well-intentioned Bill, major injustices will be done, and the anxiety that it and any proposal from the Government will cause is not worth its suggested benefits. He did not give any evidence of harm—certainly, people will be understandably anxious if such a shop is set up in the neighbourhood—but there is harm from other temptations for young people, particularly from tobacco. Virtually everyone's first use of cannabis as a drug of abuse is when it is mixed with tobacco, which is an addictive or killer drug. It kills 120,000 people a year, whereas deaths from cannabis are probably non-existent and certainly extremely rare. There is concern about the side-effects, and no one would advocate its greater use, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to think deeply about the unintended consequences of his Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Tom Brake, Keith Vaz, Mr. Gary Streeter, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mrs. Janet Dean and Bob Russell.

Cannabis Seeds (prohibition)

Tom Brake accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of cannabis seeds; and for connected purposes.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 136].

Opposition Day

[Un-allotted Half Day]
	 — 
	Cost of Living

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Gregory Campbell: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the recent increases in food and fuel costs combined with the abolition of the 10 pence tax band, and the effect these are having on the most disadvantaged in society; and calls for a review of all mechanisms, including the use of extra revenue raised through increased crude oil prices, winter fuel payments and family tax credits, to assist those on lower and medium incomes.
	Across the United Kingdom there is evidence of an economic downturn, which has many aspects to it. In fact, today's national newspaper front page headlines give a stark indication of what we face in the coming months, which has all the hallmarks of the nation's worse downturn in 30 years. While all parts of the nation and all sectors of society are suffering, the region whose suffering is among the worst is Northern Ireland. The price of oil in all parts of the UK is hovering near $150 a barrel, which means that the prices of diesel in Northern Ireland filling stations—I am sure that this is the case elsewhere in the UK—has increased by 35 per cent. since this time last year, and that of unleaded petrol by 22 per cent. Regions such as Northern Ireland, parts of Scotland and the south-west of England suffer most, because food and goods have to be transported to the consumer.
	We have seen electricity price rises of the order of 20 per cent. in 12 months; natural gas prices have risen by 28 per cent., and home heating oil in Northern Ireland has risen by 100 per cent. in a 12-month period. All that provides a clear indication that consumers and vulnerable groups, to whom I will turn in a moment, are suffering horrendously. Today, I read that home repossessions are set to rise throughout the United Kingdom by 60 per cent. by the end of the year—not in 12 months' time, but within the next six months. The credit crunch, coupled with the other issues that I have mentioned, means that people are suffering across the UK. Indeed, every constituency MP hears on a daily basis of the genuine hardships faced by people who find it difficult to meet mortgage costs. The increase in repossessions in the next six months indicate how difficult it is for people to meet those increasing mortgage costs.
	Given that vulnerable groups are being hit the hardest, people are turning to the Government for solutions. Governments here and elsewhere may protest that the increases are, for the most part, outside their control—and of course many of them are—but helping the lower-paid and vulnerable senior citizens is certainly what the Government must do, and they must do so quickly.
	I read with interest in the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister the gestures that the Government intend to make. There will be increases in the winter fuel payment and in tax credits and allowances. The Government are moving in the correct direction, but those gestures are just that—gestures—and they are not sufficient, because elderly people have found that even a £50 or £100 increase in the winter fuel payment does not extend to their covering the purchase of one tankful of home heating oil to get them through half of the coldest part of the winter. Only four years ago, the winter fuel allowance allowed a senior citizen to acquire sufficient heating oil to get them through the entire winter, so the scale of the problem is increasing, and the measures that are intended to deal with the problem have fallen significantly short.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend mentioned vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly. Does he agree that inflation for older people is running ahead of inflation rates for the community in general? The winter fuel allowance, which helps many elderly people, has been increased only once since 2000, and has not kept pace with inflation. The allowance would be a practical means of helping older people in particular, and the Government need to act on that, given the escalating price of fuel to which my hon. Friend referred.

Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. What he says is indeed the case. I have read with interest the information disseminated by the financial services group Clerical Medical, which has said that senior citizens have seen the cost of the whole range of goods and services that they use rise by 36 per cent. in the past decade. Retail price inflation, however, has risen by only 32 per cent. over the same period. That is precisely the point. The situation for those vulnerable groups, particularly elderly citizens, is worsening. It was worsening by the year, as the figures from Clerical Medical indicate, but in the climate that we face in 2008, it is worsening by the week. That is the problem with which we have to grapple.

Mark Oaten: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to what he would like the Government to do to address those circumstances, does he have any comments on what the energy companies could be doing to help with the problem?

Gregory Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Many of the energy companies could be making a significant contribution, given the profitability of most of them in recent years. They should and could be looking at their tariffs, particularly at how they ensure that payments are made. There are a number of issues that they could and should consider; I hope that they will.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend find it odd that the tariffs for some of the most needy and the poorest—those who use card meters, for example—are not the lowest? Addressing that issue would be one way in which energy companies could help reduce fuel poverty.

Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he says is indeed the case. In fact, the evidence that I have read indicates that some of the highest tariffs are levied against the most vulnerable, who cannot avail themselves of the direct debit system. The companies need to consider that issue.
	I return to the issue of the winter fuel payments. We need a radical overhaul for the next two winters. All the indications are that the oil price is not going to drop significantly in the next 12 to 15 months. That means that between now and the end of 2009, senior citizens and the vulnerable groups to which I have alluded will face two consecutive winters during which the winter fuel payment will not be sufficient to heat their homes.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been considerate in giving way. I draw his attention not only to senior citizens, who are certainly traumatised and fearful about what the future—certainly the winter period—holds for them, but to the many disabled people who face a similar trauma. More consideration needs to be given to such people, who are caged in their homes and are unable to do anything themselves. They rely on us to raise a voice for them.

Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend, who has alluded to yet another vulnerable group. One hopes that the Warm Front scheme, for example, will be extended to take particular account of the disabled and others who find that the winter fuel payment could go much further if more was on offer for their homes.
	I turn to other measures that the Government could implement to assist in the current crisis. The Government will complain—they are complaining—that employees are making demands for wage increases to meet the spiralling costs and that, in doing so, they are adding to inflationary pressures. Employees are doing that because of the problem to which I have alluded. We need to try to ensure that people's net disposable incomes are sufficient to allow them to cope with the pressures.
	In that respect, my party and I have been lobbying the Treasury for some time to increase personal allowances significantly. I notice that a temporary measure is being implemented to allow for the 10 per cent. debacle. That measure needs to become much more significant. A significant increase in the amount of take-home pay, particularly of the lower-paid, that is not subject to national insurance contributions or income tax will greatly assist them over the next 18 months or thereabouts, when the pressure will be greatest.
	The Government must respond on a combination of issues. The last thing that people want is the Prime Minister returning from the G8 summit to be asked at the airport what he thinks about the crisis. Inevitably, there will be those who would wait for a response that I have no doubt would not be given; the Prime Minister would be warned against saying, "Crisis? What crisis?" We all know the political consequences that followed the last time a Prime Minister uttered those words.
	People want more than veiled references and the Prime Minister's amendment, which alludes to the gestures that have been made. Those have been in the right direction, but are patently insufficient because the crisis, as is clear from the front pages of most newspapers today and as will continue to be clear, is deepening by the day. The Government must respond and do so in a way that people see as meaningful and that will assist people in dealing with the problems that they face—not only on a yearly basis, in their mortgage payments, but on a monthly and weekly basis. Only an emphatic Government response will allow people to see that the Government care for the low-paid, senior citizens and vulnerable groups and are taking action to alleviate the problems that those people face.

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"notes that the Governor of the Bank of England's letter of 16th June 2008 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 1.1 per cent. of the 1.2 per cent. increase in recent months in inflation was due to global energy and food prices; further notes the Government's global leadership and supports the Government's action to tackle price rises with action on an international level, including pushing for a successful conclusion to the Doha round of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation and examining the impact of biofuels of food production; acknowledges the significant increases in world prices, with the oil price rising by 80 per cent. and food prices up by 60 per cent. in the 12 months to May 2008; recognises that these increases in global prices affect every country and put real pressure on family budgets throughout the UK; further acknowledges that the measures that the Government has taken and will continue to take to support families, individuals and businesses throughout the UK include extra tax credits, increased tax allowances, further winter fuel payments and increases in child benefit; considers that a strong and stable economy delivers the most important support for working families; and supports the Government's actions that have delivered unemployment, inflation and interest rates all at historically low levels."
	It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate an issue as important as the cost of living. I appreciate that the terms of the motion and Government's amendment are set widely. It is a pleasure to respond to a debate tabled by the Democratic Unionist party and I congratulate it on having selected this subject.
	As the House will know, this debate comes at a time when families across the country face rising world food and fuel prices as well as the effects of the ongoing global credit squeeze. I would not employ the language used by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), but I acknowledge the problems that families face. Those challenges face not only us here in Britain or in Northern Ireland, but economies across the world. Oil prices have hit record highs in recent weeks and are nearly twice as high as they were a year ago. That has pushed up the price of petrol, gas and electricity. I know that Northern Ireland Electricity increased its prices by 14 per cent. at the start of the month.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so quickly. On the point that she has just made, is it not the case that although many of the pressures are global, some of the energy prices are still much higher in this country than on mainland Europe, which is still exposed to the same global pressures?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in general. If he will allow me, I shall come to such issues in an orderly way in the course of the comments that I want to make. I do want to address that point, however.
	Staple food prices have risen across the world by more than 40 per cent. in a year. Those increases, as the Governor of the Bank of England made clear in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last month, have accounted in large part for the increase in inflation since the end of last year, and they mean that the UK's economy, like that of the rest of the world, is facing a challenging time and that life is more difficult for families across the country—including, of course, in Northern Ireland.
	However, as I have said before—we have debated this on several previous occasions—our economy faces these challenges in a much stronger position to respond than in previous decades. Before I am accused of complacency, let me set this in an historical context. The UK's inflation has been the second lowest in the G7 since 1997—that is a fact that we should all be able to agree on. It is still lower than in the USA or the euro zone, and it is far lower than in the early 1990s, when for nearly two whole years it was more than twice as high as it is now. That did not happen by accident. The reform of fiscal policy established by this Government in 1997 laid the foundations for this steadiness in the economy. Interest rates are much lower than they were in the past. The strong and steady growth that we have seen over the past 10 years, from which all families have benefited, has taken us from having the lowest income per head in the G7 to the second highest, and real household income available to spend has risen by more than 30 per cent. in that time.
	Crucially, employment is high, with more than 3 million more jobs than in 1997, and unemployment is low. In Northern Ireland, unemployment has been halved in the past decade, with long-term unemployment down by 90 per cent. Its unemployment rates are among the lowest in the UK, and there are 100,000 more people in work than there were 11 years ago: a fact that brings me particular pleasure given my short time—one year—as Minister with responsibility for employment in Northern Ireland.

William McCrea: I have happy memories of the Minister's time in Northern Ireland and the pleasant manner in which she received elected representatives. However, I remind her we have specific problems that are exacerbated by this crisis—lower disposable incomes, extra energy costs and higher fuel poverty than any other region of the United Kingdom.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge that factors in Northern Ireland mean that families are affected in different ways by the challenges that we face. Broadly, on most issues, Northern Ireland faces the same challenges as the rest of the UK, but other factors overlay the situation, as the hon. Gentleman knows far better than I do as a representative of an English constituency.
	The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will know how important to Northern Ireland's economy is the ongoing political stability that we need to maintain. Clearly, the ability to bring about a devolved Government to Northern Ireland has had a major impact on the confidence of business. I will turn in a moment to the successful conference that the Assembly organised, which is a tribute to the work that is going on. The fact that companies from around the world are now investing with confidence in Northern Ireland is very much to do with the ongoing political stability that the hon. Gentleman and others have worked so hard to achieve. We all need to work hard to sustain, foster and encourage that for the sake of the ongoing stability of the economy and the extra jobs that will be generated by inward investment. I am setting the context, not seeking in any way to minimise the points that he and others will make about specific problems that he and his constituents are experiencing.
	Northern Ireland has, like the rest of the UK, enjoyed sustained economic growth for a number of years. Exports have risen by 70 per cent. over the past decade, and its economy has a promising future as it benefits from a successful peace process. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), both of whom are in their seats, on the recent US investment conference, which attracted twice as many potential investors as were originally expected. That shows the potential that there is in Northern Ireland, particularly when put alongside companies such as Fujitsu, Bloomberg and Bombardier announcing investments there.
	I am confident that Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will weather the storm that we are experiencing internationally. The Government are taking action to respond by supporting our economy, our families and our businesses. This year, we are using the flexibility that our fiscal rules give us to increase borrowing to support the economy at a time when it needs it. That allowed us to delay the increase in fuel duty that was due in April.
	The hon. Member for East Londonderry spoke about other ways in which we might support families. His motion indicates that he believes that a windfall from higher oil prices could be used for that purpose, as do other political parties that have made great play of this. If he will allow me to say so respectfully, this shows how Opposition politics fail to appreciate Government responsibilities. Let me draw his attention to the article IV inspection by the International Monetary Fund that took place in May. In a document that is publicly available on the Treasury website, the IMF says:
	"For over a decade, the United Kingdom has sustained low inflation and rapid economic growth—an exceptional achievement...the fruit of strong policies and policy frameworks, which provide a strong foundation to weather global challenges."
	It goes on to say:
	"The 2008 budget judgment was appropriate, as was its commitment to fiscal tightening over the next few years."
	It continues:
	"The inflation targeting regime should remain unaltered...Key elements of the fiscal framework".
	That is a very important endorsement of the direction of Government policy that Opposition parties who call for quick fixes should bear in mind before propounding such policies.

Peter Bone: Given the Minister's comments, are we to assume that the inflation target will not be changed, that the fact that it is way over the permitted boundaries is not acceptable, and that the Bank of England is being called in to ask it what is happening?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will know that the inflation target is a medium-term target. He will also appreciate the very strong endorsement that we are seeing from independent commentators from a number of sources about the underlying policies that this Government have introduced and remain strongly in support of, and which have brought about this sustained period of economic stability. I am confident that that ongoing stability will prove very important in helping the British economy to weather the storm that we are experiencing and face in the coming weeks. Maintaining that stability will be equally important to Northern Ireland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time we debated this, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) boiled it down to the difference between his party and mine. He said
	"there are no easy or quick solutions and no magic wands. The essence of our argument against the Government is that we have entered this downturn—and it is a downturn—"
	I do not think that anybody is arguing with that—
	"uniquely ill prepared to deal with it."—[ Official Report, 24 June 2008; Vol. 478, c. 162.]
	My suggestion to his party and to those who would argue for a different course of action is that the IMF profoundly disagrees with that. I think that parties that purport to present themselves as ready for government ought to bear in mind how important the underlying strength of the economy is, and no action should be taken that would jeopardise that stability.
	As higher fuel prices lead to less demand, we might even receive less revenue from fuel duty than we otherwise would have done, so the concept of a windfall is profoundly misjudged. VAT is a percentage of the price, so it rises with fuel prices, but as people spend more on fuel, there is likely to be an impact on VAT revenues from elsewhere in the economy, leaving the overall level of VAT roughly the same—particularly as businesses can reclaim the VAT that they spend on fuel. It is also compulsory under EU law to charge VAT on fuel, and the House should remember that the UK has one of the lowest rates of VAT on fuel in the EU.
	As well as suggesting that we were going to get a windfall—and I do not think that we will—the motion also tells us how to spend it, and suggests a review of winter fuel payments and tax credits. I am, of course, always happy to listen to proposals from any Member, but hon. Members will know that tax credits support around 20 million men, women and children across the country, and those credits have made a major contribution to lifting hundreds of thousands of children above the poverty line. They mean that 3 million out of Britain's 7 million families with children now receive more in tax credits and child benefit than they pay in income tax. Let me say that again: of the 7 million families with children in the UK, almost half now pay less in income tax than they receive in benefits through tax credits and child benefit.

Sammy Wilson: I have listened to the Minister's argument, and it is a refinement of the argument put forward time and time again to excuse the Government for not reducing fuel duty at a time when money from VAT on fuel and North sea revenues would be expected to rise. The explanation that she has given is not borne out by the figures that the Government published in the Budget report for 2009, which do not show, over the next three years, either a fall in North sea revenue duties or VAT duties. How does she square what she says with the Government's published figures?

Jane Kennedy: It is not clear that there would be a net gain to the Government as a result of the increase in oil prices. The analysis that I have given to the House of the impact of the changes is based on the best available information. Despite the case that Opposition parties are making for an opportunity to grab at this perceived or suggested windfall, the truth is very different. There is no opportunity to do what is suggested by the hon. Gentleman's party or the official Opposition.

William McCrea: Although the Minister said that the United Kingdom has one of the lowest VAT burdens, she did not say that it has one of the highest rates of tax burden on fuel in the EU. Let us have all the facts.

Jane Kennedy: But the hon. Gentleman will know that VAT rates are very difficult to adjust in the face of the European Union rules under which we work. I say to him and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that the Government responded to the increase in pressures on household costs by not raising fuel duty in the Budget in 2008, and the Chancellor will keep all those factors under review—as he always does—when considering the measures introduced in the pre-Budget report.

Peter Bone: I really do not think that the Minister should be allowed to move on while she is trying to give the impression that we are somehow better off than the European Union. The duty we pay in this country is over 50p per litre. The EU average is 25p per litre. To talk about VAT rates—I will not say it is misleading because I would not be allowed to—is moving away from reality. The fact is that the duty is twice as much.

Jane Kennedy: The fuel duty we apply is based on the sound approach that we introduced. In fact, it was the hon. Gentleman's party that introduced the fuel duty escalator. We moved away from that on the grounds that it was unsustainable. Had we stuck with his party's fuel duty escalator, which was introduced, if I remember rightly, for environmental reasons, fuel duty would now be 35p a litre higher. We are sensitive to the costs that apply to motorists, but this debate should not go by without taking note of the Royal Automobile Club report on the costs of motoring, which shows that the total cost of motoring, including the cost of fuel, has fallen by 18 per cent. in real terms over the past 20 years. Hon. Members will have read accounts of that report today, so I will not labour the point, but it is worth noting.
	Turning to winter fuel payments, they are an important part of the increased support that we have provided to pensioners over the past 11 years. In the Budget, we announced that households with people over 80 years old will receive an additional £100 alongside their winter fuel payments this year, while households with those over 60 will receive an additional £50. That will benefit 9 million households nationwide, including Northern Ireland. It is not true to say that we have not acknowledged the difficulties of dealing with rising fuel prices.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the Minister for being kind enough to give way again. She alludes to the proposed increase in the winter fuel payment, and all hon. Members say that that is a step in the right direction. But can she not accept that that increase is significantly short of what the people who avail themselves of the benefit need to pay for oil? That is the point.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge that the situation means that families throughout the UK are facing increasing costs. We have made a contribution towards helping them to do that. I accept that I cannot make promises to the hon. Gentleman that will mitigate the effect of all those costs. We have acknowledged the situation by taking action to help families with older people in their households, and we know that fuel costs cause them great anxiety because of the need to maintain a warm environment, particularly for older people in poorer health.
	I do not accept that we have not been doing enough. We have been supporting families for the last 11 years, and we are continuing to do so today. In fact, we are providing even more support, recognising the tougher time that people are facing. At the same time as we are helping people to deal with the challenges, we are tackling their causes, including the ongoing credit squeeze. We are supporting the Bank of England's special liquidity scheme, which is helping to stabilise the financial markets and to promote confidence. We are also working to strengthen mortgage finance markets, which funded about a third of new mortgages last summer, but which have since frozen. During my visit to Northern Ireland on Monday, I was interested to note that house building appeared to have slowed, when it had grown very strongly there. I accept that Northern Ireland, like other parts of the UK, is experiencing the challenges that the British economy is facing.

Mark Durkan: My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the banks are benefiting from the Bank of England liquidity scheme. In circumstances where all of us, as taxpayers, are essentially underwriting liquidity for the banking sector, should it not be doing more to ensure greater liquidity in the construction and property sector? Businesses in that sector in Northern Ireland are going under. Many feel that they will be made to walk the plank soon by banks, partly because of the lack of liquidity in circumstances where house prices are falling. But people cannot buy houses because the cost of mortgages is too dear.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend asks an important question, but it is important for the House to understand that we are not underwriting the banks in the way in which he suggests. Questions were asked about that earlier in Prime Minister's Question Time, and hon. Members know that the Government are taking seriously the measures that need to be put in place to support and reform the banking system and encourage confidence. We are working closely with the financial industries and the banking sector to ensure that we get the legislation right before we introduce it in Parliament. However, I appreciate that the anxiety that my hon. Friend described is real.

Mark Oaten: Given the attempts and efforts that the Financial Secretary describes, is she concerned that so many individual banks are not passing on changes in interest rates to their customers? Indeed, the rate that is advertised and offered to new borrowers on most new mortgage products has increased. That applies especially to those transferring from previous fixed rate deals.

Jane Kennedy: We would like the banks to pass on the changes, but that is a matter for each bank and its relationship with its borrowers. I note the hon. Gentleman's point, and, while I am speaking to him directly, let me deal with his question about electricity prices being higher in the UK. I apologise for not having figures immediately to hand on relative electricity prices in the European Union, but I am conscious that the nature of the electricity market in the UK is different from structures in other member states. Northern Ireland Electricity advises that, following the 14 per cent. tariff increases in domestic electricity prices, Northern Ireland prices will be 2.1 per cent. above those in comparator regions in Great Britain, 9 per cent. lower than the western European average and 9 per cent. lower than those of the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic of Ireland. None of that will be of comfort where prices are increasing, but it is worth the House bearing in mind the context of the price rises.

David Simpson: The Financial Secretary mentioned an increase in the price of electricity, but does she know that Northern Ireland faces another 14 per cent. increase come audit time?

Jane Kennedy: I dealt with that point in my reply to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). I hear what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) says.
	Although we can support the economy, and support families here in Britain, the global credit crunch and rising food and fuel prices across the world are international problems, which need international solutions. As hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in Japan earlier this week discussing world food prices, and we are continuing to press for reform of the common agricultural policy because it is unacceptable that the EU continues to apply high tariffs to many agricultural imports, especially at a time of such high prices.

Peter Bone: Hear, hear.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	Agreeing a successful deal on the Doha development agenda will also help remove distorting subsidies and restrictions, and we will continue to push for a deal up to and at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting. We are also working with our international partners to achieve a world response to rising oil prices, including greater investment to help achieve enhanced supply capacity in the medium term, and moderating future demand growth by improving energy efficiency and exploring alternatives to oil. If the world is not producing enough fuel or food to meet rising demand, that challenge requires an international response.
	Clearly, times are tough. People are paying more for their food, energy bills and petrol because of rising prices around the world at a time when we face a continuing credit crunch, which has meant increased mortgage costs for some. However, as I said, I believe that Britain is well placed to respond, and we are responding. The same is true in Northern Ireland. Inflation has been low for several years, there has been sustained growth, and unemployment rates are among the lowest in the UK.
	Maintaining calm and developing appropriate and proportionate responses in the current global economic turbulence do not equate to complacency. I stress that we are not complacent. That is why the Government continue to work with our international partners to respond to the global challenges and support families across Britain, including in Northern Ireland. I urge hon. Members to oppose the motion, however well intentioned—I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry for introducing it—and I commend the Government amendment instead.

Justine Greening: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on securing a debate on a subject that is vital for many people throughout the country. There is no doubt that the rising cost of living is one of the most pressing issues for millions of people in Britain today. That includes families, pensioners—indeed, pretty much everyone on low and fixed incomes, who struggle to cope with increased prices. Many are younger people who are starting out on their working lives and are therefore on much lower incomes than other people. They find that food is getting more expensive and fuel bills are increasing at an alarming rate, as we discussed earlier. Mortgages are harder to come by and the cost of transport—whether cars, buses or trains—continues to rise. A report by Asda stated that the cost of transport had increased by 6 per cent. between May 2007 and May this year.
	We live in uncertain times. Today's economic pressures will not go away any time soon. Given that grim outlook, I am worried that the Government have fundamentally misunderstood the dire position that people face. Ministers tell us that our economy is in great shape, and much better than it was 20 years ago. However, people in today's Britain are already living frugally; many are already struggling to keep their heads above water financially. Disposable income has fallen by 6 per cent. That means that by May this year, families had 6 per cent. less to spend on leisure and entertainment than they had in May last year. A cost of living index, which Capital Economics researched for  The Daily Telegraph, showed that a typical family that spent £100 a week on food a year ago now pays an extra £406 annually on groceries. Families clearly face difficult challenges.
	Many people have all their disposable income committed; they simply have no more money to give the Government. The savings ratio is a tenth of what it was in 1997 and many people have nothing in reserve. For the many who live on the tipping point, life is not happy. It is stressful for families who are doing all they can to get by in such challenging times. It is unbelievably frustrating and stressful for people to be in a position where, although they are doing everything possible to keep the cost of living down, they face a constant daily challenge to make the household budget add up. They end up feeling that they have no control over their situation and little influence over events as they unfold. They need a Government who offer them the hope of a way out of their troubles.
	Have the Government shown leadership on such issues? Have they recognised the urgent need to do everything they can to help struggling families in Britain? The answer is no. Instead, it is abundantly clear that the Government's attitude to the problem is, "Don't blame us, it's not our fault." We see that in the tone of their amendment. Inflation, food prices, fuel prices: these are global issues to the Government. They are telling us, "What can we do about them?" That is their attitude. There is nothing in the Government's amendment to give people facing challenges caused by the cost of living any hope whatever. It talks about "global leadership", but frankly, people up and down this country would settle for some national leadership.

Jane Kennedy: It is kind of the hon. Lady to give way so early in her speech. I sought to set out why we were taking the course of action that we are, based on our confidence in the reforms that we made to fiscal policy arrangements early in government. I would be very interested to hear whether she believes that there are any alternative measures that we could take, perhaps at a macro-economic level. Would she intervene over interest rates, for example? I am interested to know what exactly she would do in this situation that she believes would bring about a better outcome for the British economy.

Justine Greening: I will come to that shortly. On interest rates, my understanding is that it is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, not our side, who are chuntering behind the scenes about what the Bank of England should do. The Government talk about leadership, but the reality is that there is a complete lack of leadership. Unfortunately, however, the Government's involvement in the cost of living goes beyond that.
	Let us set aside the Government's claim about rising global costs. We can see that global trends are pushing up the cost of commodities such as corn and energy, but the Government have choices that they can make. The Financial Secretary has challenged me on what the Conservatives would do, and I will come to that. However, rather than trying to come up with solutions, the Government are, for many millions of people up and down the country, now part of the problem, because they are adding to the economic burden that people face. Despite all their warm words, and what they claim is their understanding of people's predicament as they try to keep up with rising fuel, energy and food costs, the Government have nevertheless decided to add to their economic misery.
	Ministers must understand that their actions have serious and damaging consequences for people's cost of living. We talked earlier about dithering over the fuel duty rise. What families need from the Government is certainty. They need to be able to plan ahead. I will tell the Financial Secretary what she could do right now: she could tell us when the Government are going to make an announcement on their planned fuel duty rise.  [ Interruption. ] She says that they may make an announcement at the Budget.

Jane Kennedy: We made one.

Justine Greening: If the Financial Secretary wants to intervene, she can do so, but the reality is that, like the rest of the British people, we are left wondering, looking for nudges and winks—perhaps they will have a think about policies in this or that area. That is simply not good enough for families who need to plan financially, as they head into the second half of the year.

Rob Marris: What is the world price of oil going to be in October?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman points out that there is uncertainty, but why are the Government nevertheless ploughing ahead with the policies that they introduced in the Budget? They include, for example, taking away the 10p tax rate, which they would never have backed down on if they had not been caught with their fingers in the pockets of people on such low incomes. Indeed, they have not backed down yet.
	On vehicle excise duty, the Government were again caught with their fingers in the pockets of people who can least afford it. Although over recent months Labour MPs have made a great play of their angst about what their Government are doing to their constituents who cannot afford to pay more tax, when it came to road tax, which will affect twice as many people—in some cases by up to twice as much—they passed up an opportunity last week to help keep the cost of living down, and were quite happy to put politics ahead of their constituents.
	Even with the 10p tax rate fiasco, there are still well over 1 million people who will be worse off as a result of the Government's Budget, which they introduced when they knew that we were entering uncertain times. That is the reality of the Government's involvement in all this. Such policies will be the final straw for hundreds of thousands—probably millions—of households that are on the brink of going under financially. The Financial Secretary talked about the winter fuel allowance. Yes—a one-year winter fuel allowance paid for by permanent tax rises. Even this week, we have seen the complete and, dare I say, utter hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, in terms of the lack of assistance on offer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to consider withdrawing that remark and rephrasing.

Justine Greening: I will withdraw that remark. The Prime Minister was ill advised to make comments to British families about economising on wasting food on the same day that he sat down to an eight-course meal at the G8 summit that, as I understand from the menu, included white asparagus and truffle soup and what is called in French an amuse bouche—I understand that it is called corn-stuffed caviar in English—which was all washed down with champagne. People must wonder what planet the Prime Minister is living on when he can have that meal in the evening and then in the morning tell people that they are wasting their food.
	As ever with this Government, it is one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us. The Prime Minister tells us that households can save £240 a year by not wasting food, but how about if they did not have to save it? How about if the Government were not bringing forward road tax rises that will cost some families £245 a year? The Government could be playing their role in helping people to cope with the rising cost of living, but they are not. The Prime Minister is in no position to lecture the British people about waste when he has presided over a Government who most people feel have wasted billions of pounds more than any Government in living memory—indeed, they have wasted £1.4 billion on tax credits alone.
	The last thing that people who are just managing to stay afloat need right now is a Government who want to take more money out of their pockets, while at the same time telling them that they should try to economise. The reason why the Government are in this position—the reason why they cannot stop themselves from going ahead with their swingeing tax rises on low-income people—is that they have run out of money. As we have said, they could have fixed the economic roof when the sun was shining and the global economy was in a better shape. They chose not to, and now they are left with no alternative but to impose tax rises on the people who can least afford them, at a time when their financial situation is getting worse and worse.
	I am sure that the Financial Secretary has told us that her hands are tied and that there is no room for Government to manoeuvre, but the situation is down to the Government's economic mismanagement, and there are things that can be done to help people. As we discussed earlier, only last week the House had a choice to avoid going ahead with swingeing, punitive increases in road tax, but Government MPs decided not to take that road. They decided to press ahead with increases on road tax—and for what? To tackle motor vehicle emissions, which, by their own admission, the policy will reduce by a fraction of 1 per cent. by 2020. That measure was all about raising money, and Government MPs were quite happy to go through the Lobby and vote for it.
	Last weekend, we proposed a fair fuel stabiliser, which would mitigate the burden on families of rising fuel prices by lowering fuel duty and vice versa, precisely in order to remove the uncertainty that people face in their household budgets to the extent that we can.

Kitty Ussher: I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned her proposals for a fuel duty stabiliser. My question is this: if the oil price rose so much that the public purse could not afford automatically to compensate families for the increase in the price of petrol, would a future Conservative Government do that?

Justine Greening: What the Economic Secretary has fundamentally missed is the other beneficial aspect of our measure. It would provide not only stability for household finances—although that is the most important part of what we are doing—but stability, as she ought to know, for the public finances. Our proposal would ensure that at times of rising oil prices, the Government would receive an unexpected windfall. Ministers have questioned our proposal— [ Interruption ]—and indeed, they are shaking their heads right now. However, they should talk to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, whose work clearly shows that there is a net benefit to the Exchequer of rising oil prices. The problem is—

Kitty Ussher: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Justine Greening: No, I will not give way.

Kitty Ussher: rose—

Justine Greening: Let me just finish explaining and answering the question. That might be helpful.
	The other side of the argument is that when oil prices go down, the Government have an unexpected shortfall. Our proposals would therefore stabilise public finances as well. I do not need to take any lectures on our policy from a Government who cannot even tell us what they are going to do about fuel duty in the next six months. They do not have a policy, but they need to have one, for the sake of the British people. Instead, they are going to dither and do whatever is politically astute for them, instead of what is financially astute for the British people.

Kitty Ussher: Does the hon. Lady not agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has considerable experience in this respect, when it says that there is no clear evidence of any net windfall for the Government as a result of a rise in oil prices?

Justine Greening: The Minister and I can trade think-tanks, but the Conservatives are absolutely confident that the approach that we are taking will benefit the British people and provide them with some certainty, which is something that Ministers, living in their bubble in Whitehall, are rather dismissive of. People who are watching this debate, or who read about it in the papers tomorrow, will be dismayed to see the Government pooh-poohing an idea that could really help families throughout the country right now. If our proposal had been introduced in the Budget, families would now be paying 5p a litre less for their fuel, which would be very welcome.
	I shall wrap up now, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak—

David Wright: That wasn't very macro-economic.

Justine Greening: Labour Members, who have nothing to tell the British people about what they would do, apparently want to hear more from us. I am sure they do, because every time we announce a policy, they go through a process of rubbishing it, then rapidly adopt it in some less effective variant.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister argued earlier that VAT revenues from other areas fell when fuel duty went up. On that argument, if the fuel stabiliser that the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) proposes were introduced, surely the compensatory element for public finance would be self-financing. If we give people more money in their pockets through lower fuel prices, they will spend more on goods and the Government will get more through VAT.

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, although I doubt that the Minister would have anything interesting to say in response to it. I see that she does not wish to intervene at this point.
	In these difficult economic times, the thing that people need most is for the Government to be on their side. We have had 10 years of this Government telling us that everything was fine, but it is now clear that for people in Britain that is not the case and that the Government have economically mismanaged this country's public finances. They did not fix the roof when the sun was shining. People will remember this Government for the hard times, not the good times, and the true test of the Government's leadership and competence comes when things are at their worst. People are looking to Ministers for a lifeline and for help to ease their financial burdens. Instead, they are seeing a worsening of those burdens.
	A Conservative Government will help people, rather than hinder them. We want to assist people with their financial troubles and try to ease those troubles, rather than taking the route that this Government have taken in adding to them. We are going to tackle economic problems, rather than abrogate responsibility, as we have seen happening today. What are people getting at the moment? They are being met with nothing more than uncaring, indifferent leadership from Ministers who, far from offering solutions to any of their financial troubles, are more concerned with addressing political priorities than tackling the nation's economic priorities.

Mark Durkan: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and his colleagues on securing a debate on this important issue. The hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour and, indeed, my constituent—

Rob Marris: He's not voting for you!

Mark Durkan: No; that is not news.
	The hon. Member for East Londonderry, the Minister and others who have spoken have highlighted a number of ways in which the current situation is affecting people in their daily lives, and in their homes in regard to household bills and their daily consumption. The credit crunch that we have all been talking about is now a consumer crunch, and consumers are now experiencing a situation of crunch and grind as more and more bills are rising higher and higher.
	Underlying energy costs are contributing to higher food costs and higher costs for all sorts of other services and amenities. They are also contributing to higher costs for the public purse, as fuel bills rise for hospitals, schools and other public service buildings. The situation is biting on all of us, either as individuals, in households, in businesses or as taxpayers funding public services.
	The Minister talked about a global rise in oil prices and referred to the fact that the world was not producing enough oil. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment took evidence from people in the energy market who made the point that a barrel of oil is traded 11 times before it is consumed. Those trade transactions are driving up the cost to the end consumer. Similarly, it was pointed out that gas in the UK is traded six times before it is consumed, whereas the additional ratio of trade in the continental gas market is only 0.6. I know that there is a different structure in the gas market on the continent, including more state ownership, but the fact is that we need to take account of the market factors that are driving up the costs for consumers before they have to pay the end cost. It is clear that they are paying more than just the price of scarce production, and that they are having to take on price increases that are the result of up to 12 transactions for profiteering and speculating purposes.
	When we search for evidence of who is doing this trading in oil, we see that banks and institutional investors are significant players in that regard. I accept that, in circumstances in which the property market has taken a hit, banks and other institutional investors are looking for commodities to deal and speculate in usefully and profitably, not least because they are trying to maintain the value of pensions on behalf of us all. However, we really need to see some action that says to institutional investors that the degree to which they trade in commodity indices and in futures is doing wider economic damage. We know from the warnings given to the US Senate Commerce Committee by George Soros, among others, that the degree of dealing that is going on in commodity indices is creating a dangerous bubble. That is creating the immediate price pressure that everyone is feeling, but it will also create a dangerous collapse at a later stage.
	When we consider the key pressures affecting the cost of living, it is important to ask whether there are interventions that could be made or brakes that could be applied to ease the pressure from global oil price rises. I hope that the G8 and other international forums will consider such interventions and restraints, and examine whether we could incentivise responsibility among those who seem to be having a significant impact on the oil crisis.
	What we are discussing today is the cost of living, but it is clear from the comments of hon. Members who have spoken that looming large within our consideration of the cost of living nowadays is the cost of warmth. I would like to see the Government move forward with a working cost-of-warmth index to show that they are tracking and measuring the cost of warmth for people in their homes, whatever the cost of domestic fuel. They need to gain a real sense of what people have to pay.
	The Government should use a cost-of-warmth index to proof and improve their efforts to tackle fuel poverty. To their credit, they have made significant inroads into reducing fuel poverty over a number of years. Of course, the danger of the current crisis is the risk of all that good work being wiped out. Just as they are right not to throw away their drive towards creating a greener fiscal regime in the current economic climate, so they are right to keep their focus on trying to bear down on fuel poverty, curbing and restraining it as much as possible.
	In the context of a cost-of-warmth index that tracks what different households have to pay and the changes in relative income bases, it is important for the Government to take into account the argument about windfall taxes to a more considered degree than they have so far. The Government tend to put forward the general surmise, "Well, it is swings and roundabouts; and what we appear to gain here, we may lose somewhere else." It would be helpful if the Government were able to say more precisely what they are or are not gaining in respect of VAT on domestic fuel bills, added revenues from various other fuel duties and any other revenue receipts, which would allow people to judge the argument.
	The Government have used reflex arguments before in respect of fiscal issues, including spending a long time saying that it was a figment of everyone else's imaginations to suppose that there would be problems from the abolition of the 10p tax band, only eventually to recognise that there were serious problems requiring fairly dramatic responses and interventions to ameliorate the resulting situation. I would appreciate it if the Government, as well as cautioning the rest of us about the argument, promised to show exactly what is or is not happening.
	I particularly hope that the Government will promise to identify what additional VAT income they receive from household energy bills. They should separate out petrol, diesel and other fuels and find out what exactly is happening in respect of added revenue yield coming from ever-increasing domestic energy bills. The hon. Member for East Londonderry referred earlier to the sort of price increases that consumers in Northern Ireland have faced, with one gas company's consumers having to pay 28 per cent. extra and electricity customers facing an interim increase of 14 per cent.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) then intervened to say that the same, if not worse, increases were going to happen in the autumn. In the circumstances, the Government should look further into those revenues with an eye to redirecting any windfall VAT benefits on domestic energy bills towards adopting measures aimed at improving energy efficiency or curbing fuel poverty for those domestic consumers. We need to target and keep our eye on that issue in circumstances where it is very easy to get distracted and preoccupied with a variety of other issues. We need to keep an eye on the Government's successful drive on fuel poverty. It would be consistent with the Government's approach if Ministers were to refocus their case on the general argument for windfall taxes in order to deal with that particular issue.
	I intervened on the Minister earlier about the difficulties faced by the construction and property sector in the current crisis. In a constituency and region such as mine, that is not only a problem for businesses. Yes, construction and property is a very significant sector in Northern Ireland—indeed, it has been a very significant driver of the regional economy recently, just as it was a hugely significant driver in the economic success of the Irish Republic over the past decade—but it is now a sector in crisis. Given the land prices developers were prepared to pay and the house prices that they were prepared to charge, not everyone will have much sympathy for them, but the fact remains that it is not a crisis entirely of their own making. After all, the banks were throwing money at them to buy land at these significant prices, and they were putting up the money in very generous mortgage deals at 100 per cent. and 125 per cent., which fuelled the market, but we are now seeing a virtual collapse of that market with the banks putting the squeeze on some of those very same businesses. Houses are available at much lower prices than were sought last year, so it is paradoxical that they are now in market terms out of the reach of many people, who can no longer access the finance to buy them.
	Given the commitments of the Government and the various Administrations around these islands to affordable and social housing, positive intervention is important. We need more effective intervention to ensure that houses that should be available at lower prices are available at lower prices. Influencing the banks is a key factor, because they have moved from over-lending to under-lending as far as that market is concerned. Action needs to be taken to strike a better balance.
	I argued earlier that the credit crunch has become a consumer crunch, and I want to close by mentioning my visit to a credit union in my constituency. Those working there told me that they are now being asked for loans so that people can pay their fuel bills or cope with significant household bills, including groceries. That is a new situation for credit unions. Some of the older credit unions may have faced it many years ago and some may have started by helping people to cope in that way, but now that problem is biting again, it really is a call to us all to wake up and see what we can do.
	I accept what the Government say about their good economic management over the past 10 years, and I also respect what they say about all their headline macro-policy initiatives, but policy management does not always help people to cope in circumstances where they have to turn to a credit union to cope with an oil bill. If this is happening as we come into the summer, what situation are people going to face as we move into winter? It was good to hear from the Financial Secretary that the Government appreciate the pressures that people are experiencing, as it is important that they feel the pain of those who are struggling on marginal incomes with ever-rising bills. However, it is even more important that the Government translate that into significant action and real intervention that helps real people to cope with very real pressures.

Vincent Cable: Let me add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). A couple of weeks ago we had an Opposition day debate on the same subject, but no Ulster Members had an opportunity to speak on that occasion. As I do not want to restrict the time available to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who is obviously waiting to speak, I shall be fairly brief.
	A couple of distinctive Northern Irish issues are relevant to the debate. The first is that as Northern Ireland has a large rural hinterland, it is probably proportionally more affected by transport costs and by a relatively poor train system. The impact on the farming community is particularly significant, and it involves factors that also affect Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and other parts of England.
	A second issue that was mentioned by neither the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) nor the hon. Member for East Londonderry is Northern Ireland's proximity to the Irish border. Nowadays there is a large amount of cross-border trade and movement across the Euroland frontier. Anyone importing goods from southern Ireland or crossing the border to buy them will know of the substantial impact of sterling devaluation against the euro, which is probably about 15 per cent. That currency change is an important element of the increased cost of living in Northern Ireland, which may be mentioned in the winding-up speeches.
	I want to develop some of the points made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) about the oil sector. Although the motion contains nothing desperately controversial—it is worded very openly, and I am happy to support it—I worry, like the Minister, about the constant references to a windfall from oil. It is tempting to jump on to the bandwagon, as the Conservatives and the Scottish National party have, and I am tempted to imagine that there is a pot of gold that can be spent on good causes, but I want to dwell a little on where the money comes from.
	The sums that I have seen suggest that if we are talking purely about the existing windfall tax from the North sea—the petroleum revenue tax and the extra rate of corporation tax—if oil prices were maintained at their present level throughout the financial year, there could be an extra £6 billion from that source and, on similar assumptions, £3 billion or £4 billion from value added tax. That apparently quite large sum would come simply from higher oil prices.
	There are two points to be made. First, we are talking about not a separate silo, but a single stream of Government revenue. What is happening to oil revenue is no different from what is happening to stamp duty or income tax. Some taxes are going up, while others are going down. This is not free money waiting to be allocated, and if it were allocated to something else there would presumably be an opportunity cost. That is the obvious point.
	Secondly, there is a slightly more subtle point, which I think the Financial Secretary was trying to make, although I do not know how subtle it proved to be because I had to leave the Chamber. It is an economic point: as the fact that oil prices are rising contributes to a slow-down in the economy and therefore has an impact on income tax, corporation tax and all the other taxes that are going down, it is questionable whether there is a net revenue gain.
	I am on the Financial Secretary's side, and I am somewhat sceptical about the existence of a net gain. The think-tanks have clearly reflected on the matter, which they consider to be complex, and they have not come up with any definitive conclusions. I think it would help the Government to make their own case, not only with Opposition parties but in the drawing rooms and pubs of Britain, if they explained the model that they use to produce their figures. I do not know whether the outcome would be positive or negative, but I think it would increase their credibility if they explained their calculations rather than the Financial Secretary simply telling us that she has the information on good authority. After all, it may or may not be good authority.
	The hon. Member for Putney spoke of the new approach to the duty regulator. She is to be commended for coming up with a new idea that deserves serious discussion, and although I think that she will acknowledge that it is based largely on an idea that the Scottish nationalists have been advancing for some years, it has joined the mainstream of the debate, so let us discuss it.
	On the basis of what the hon. Lady said today and what I heard her say on the radio during the rain intervals at Wimbledon on Sunday, I think that I have pieced the argument together, and I do not think what she is saying is enormously different from what the Government are doing. When oil prices rise, a decision is made not to increase the escalator. The difference is that the Government do that on an ad hoc basis, while the hon. Lady suggests that it should be done according to a formula.
	During our last debate on the cost of living, the Chief Secretary acknowledged that the price of petrol had been reduced by, I think, about 16p a litre as a result of the freezing of the escalator since 1999. The hon. Member for Putney argues that such action could be taken more effectively if it were taken systematically. Her explanation—it was more detailed on the radio than it was today—is that because there is a cycle in prices, we can be reasonably confident that when prices rise the duty can be withheld, and when they fall again it can be increased. It all balances out in tax-neutral way.
	The problem is that the oil market does not actually work in cycles. In the 19th century, when Daniel Day-Lewis was drilling for oil, there was a cycle, and then for the best part of a century there was not, because the oil industry was controlled by companies that had access to cheap oil. They controlled the supply to keep the price flat. Since then, we have had three rather random shocks: one caused by a cartel, one caused by a war and one caused by specifically economic conditions—rapidly rising demand in Asia and restrictions in capacity.
	I think that to create a model based on the idea that there is some regular cycle, as the Conservatives seem to be proposing, does not correspond to the way the system works. To make their proposal work, they would need a reference price—a trend price—against which they could make judgments on whether the price was above or below normal. The price would have to be established somehow, and I do not know how they would establish it.
	The honest truth is that no one, whether they know a lot about the oil industry or not, has the faintest idea what will happen to world oil prices. They could continue to rise indefinitely, as some theorists argue. If that were to happen, under this proposal there would have to be a permanent freeze on increased revenue, leading to a black hole of some kind which would have to be explained. The price might come right back down again because of a recession or increased supply, in which case the Conservatives would be able to pick up revenue, but they have not explained whether that would be possible to the extent of cancelling out the original concession, and whether there would be indexing. It would all be very difficult, although I do not want to be too damning, because the idea may be in its preliminary stages.
	The hon. Lady was absolutely right to say that what she proposes would stabilise the impact on households. That is obviously true, and it is an advantage of her approach. It is, however, untrue to say, as she did, that it would stabilise Government revenue, because it would do the opposite. That is a simple matter of logic—it must destabilise Government revenue. When the hon. Lady's proposal is analysed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others, they will make that point very strongly. Putting in the hands of a future Chancellor a policy that destabilises Government revenue would not be terribly helpful. Perhaps we should return to the issue later, but it has some relevance to the debate, because the motion refers to the potential source of oil revenue.
	The Conservatives are pushing their constructive idea on oil prices, and I am pushing mine on the housing market. I want briefly to refer to, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry has mentioned, the impact of the slow-down in the housing market in the Province. I should, perhaps, be less kind now to the Financial Secretary, as we had a debate a few months ago on what was happening in the housing market, and I ask her to read some of the things she said then, when I was accused of scaremongering, exaggerating and finding doom in that otherwise happy corner of the economy. If she looks back, she will find that what I was saying was deeply conservative compared with what is now happening with the falls in sales and prices and the ripples felt in the building industry, which have had devastating consequences, and which none of us, including me, had anticipated.
	I commend to the Financial Secretary an idea that I and others, including some Labour Members, have been putting forward. One way of helping to stabilise the situation, and also of doing an important social good, would be to take advantage of the fact that there are now substantial amounts of unsold property and unfinished developments—including, I suspect, in the fairly prosperous suburbs around Belfast and elsewhere—which social landlords such as the council and registered social landlords could acquire at a very substantial discount and make available for rent on the basis of need. There is a major opportunity for the Government not to intervene directly, but to empower social landlords to do that. It would be a very attractive economic proposition. I am aware that it would raise borrowing levels, but as an economic intervention, it would be a sensible and helpful thing to do, and I ask the Government to reflect on that.

David Simpson: I am sure that those at home who might be watching this debate will be saying to themselves, "We're not interested in the technicalities of why there are difficulties; we're interested in how much money will be in our bank accounts and pockets to pay bills." Come September, households will have to face buying school uniforms and other things for their kids, and shortly after that we will be facing the Christmas period. Those of us who do a lot of work on the large housing estates in our constituencies will know exactly how those folk have to live. This is a very difficult time for them. The Financial Secretary mentioned the word downturn in relation to the economy. I am sure that Members will agree that this is more than just a downturn. The debate focuses on Northern Ireland, but I believe that the whole of the United Kingdom will face a very difficult time over the next three to four years.
	I wish to rehearse certain points and facts mentioned in the debate that need to be reiterated. The price of oil has reached an all-time high, and that is causing a major difficulty. Petrol prices have surged in the last year, and motorists across the United Kingdom are paying in the region of £14.3 million more per day than they were 12 months ago. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned transport. It is a vital and integral part of delivering goods and services not only in Northern Ireland, but across the UK.
	The Financial Secretary is currently absent from the Chamber, but I wish to pay tribute to her. She visited Northern Ireland on Monday past in her Treasury role in order to investigate the issue of the illegal fuel that is coming into Northern Ireland via the Republic of Ireland. That is a major difficulty. As Members know, there was a large lobby here last week, and we met representatives from a number of transport companies from Northern Ireland who told us about the difficulties they were facing.
	Reference has again been made to the south of Ireland and the economy, and I am very glad that my party did not move towards having an all-Ireland economy as recommended by the party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). If we had done so, we would be facing even more difficulties, because the so-called Celtic tiger which, we were told, was on fire for so many years, is starting to wither like grapes on a vine. Sadly, it is going down the tubes, as we in Northern Ireland would say. We did not go down such an all-Ireland route, but the Government must pay attention to the issue of the fuel coming into Northern Ireland illegally.

Mark Durkan: Surely the case for an all-Ireland economy is reinforced by the current situation? Part of the answer for consumers to the question of energy costs is to make sure that we have a more active competitive market, and the way forward on that is to have a strong island market and then a stronger market within these islands.

David Simpson: To a certain extent, I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he will know that in November last year we linked up our electricity through an interconnector, but we are told that Northern Ireland will not receive the benefit of that for some years, and the reason is that the power plants in the Republic of Ireland are so old that they need a lot of investment in repairs and so forth to come up to the level of what we would term efficiency.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend accept that all the evidence so far is that the single electricity market, which in the Irish Republic is dominated by the Government-sponsored monopoly ESB—the Electricity Supply Board—has added to fuel costs in Northern Ireland, not reduced them?

David Simpson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I entirely agree with him.
	Farming and food production make a major contribution to the Northern Ireland economy, more so than in any other region in the United Kingdom. Agriculture contributes 0.5 per cent. towards the total gross value added across the United Kingdom, but the figure for Northern Ireland is 1.3 per cent. It therefore follows that pressures in agriculture are felt twice as much in Northern Ireland as they are across the United Kingdom as a whole. The farmers in Northern Ireland also experience twice the degree of hardship as a result of rises in the cost of feed and grain. Across the United Kingdom, 28 per cent. of gross output comes from the cattle, sheep, pig and poultry industries, while the proportion for Northern Ireland is 43 per cent. As a result, Northern Ireland farmers have to purchase more than twice the amount of feedstuff as their mainland counterparts and must therefore bear the cost of grain prices, which have exploded in recent months.
	The Government may not control oil production by OPEC, but they do control the amount of taxation levied on fuel, and the UK has the greatest tax burden on fuel of any of the EU countries. The tax on a litre of petrol in Britain is some 57p, compared with 31p in Spain, 45p in Italy, 48p in France and 52p in Germany. The Exchequer has the power to reduce the cost of fuel.
	Unfortunately, whenever there is a downturn in the overall economy, small businesses are especially affected. The Federation of Small Businesses has given us some figures on the difficulties that its members are experiencing. A poll carried out by the federation showed that 9,000 small business owners—more than 80 per cent. of those surveyed—said that fuel costs are likely to make it more difficult for them to expand their business and hire more staff in the next 12 months. Nearly 40 per cent. said that fuel costs would make it likely that they would have to reduce staff numbers in the next 12 months.
	My constituency has the largest manufacturing work force in the Province—some 9,500 jobs—with the next largest being East Belfast. The businesses that provide those jobs have major concerns that if this trend continues—as economists tell us it will—they will have to pay off massive numbers of staff. That is a sad reflection on the state of manufacturing industry, which is dwindling in many parts of the UK. The Government could do more. Their amendment goes some way, but it does not go far enough. More could be done to help people, not only in Northern Ireland, but across the UK, to get out of the poverty that they are in.
	Eleanor Gill, the chief executive of the Consumer Council, has said of gas prices in Northern Ireland:
	"The sheer scale of this gas price increase will leave consumers here reeling at a time when the cost of living has shot up by £1,400 in just one year, and they now will have to find an extra £130. A staggering one in three households here is in fuel poverty which is nearly double the rest of the UK. On top of this our incomes are lower and we depend more on benefits."
	I hope and trust that the Government will see a way to help those in trouble out of their difficulties, across the whole of the UK.

Peter Bone: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who is always worth listening to. His experience in Northern Ireland is most helpful to this debate, but so are his comments about the rest of the United Kingdom. I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on his reasoned and thoughtful introduction to the debate.
	I was amazed when the Minister said that the Government would oppose the motion. That is like opposing apple pie. How can they oppose a motion that proposes the consideration of ways to protect the poorest in our society?
	When I was a new Member, I noticed early on how assiduous hon. Members from Northern Ireland—from all parties—are at attending debates in this House. They must be some of the hardest-working Members in the House, and they should be congratulated on their efforts on behalf of the United Kingdom.
	Wherever people live in this country, the increasing cost of living is reducing their quality of life. This is not a "new Labour" Government: there is nothing new about them. They are like any old Labour Government: they tax and spend, tax and spend, and then destroy the economy. Then a Conservative Government come into power and have to spend many months fixing the mess that they have inherited.
	I suppose that there is one difference. Former Prime Minister Blair tried to hide the tax increases so that people did not notice them, but now the stealth taxes are coming home to roost. The current Prime Minister does not bother. He does not even try to hide the tax increases. He scrapped the 10p rate of tax, harming millions of our most disadvantaged citizens, but at the same time the Government continue to waste millions and millions of pounds on useless projects. Before a Labour Member jumps up—oh, there is no one on the Labour Benches apart from the Minister and the Parliamentary Private Secretary—

David Evennett: Typical!

Peter Bone: I would not say that, because for important debates, such as regulatory reform tomorrow, the Labour Benches will be packed. My point was that Labour Members, if they were here, would probably challenge me on what we would scrap if we were in government. Why not scrap regional assemblies, saving £230 million a year? Why not scrap the Standards Board for England, saving £12 million a year? Why are we building new driving test centres across the country, costing £71 million? I know the answer to the last question: it is because the Government did not bother to get a derogation from the European Union like other countries did. Instead, the Government said, "Let's spend £71 million. It's only taxpayers' money so it doesn't matter."
	All that expenditure pushes up taxes and increases the cost of living. As we heard earlier, from both sides of the House, it is extraordinary that when our lorry drivers fill up with diesel they pay 50.35p per litre, whereas our continental cousins pay just 25p. Those additional costs work through and increase the cost of living. It does not stop there. I know that the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned some figures for the rate of tax paid on every litre of petrol by private motorists, but I have obtained the latest figures from the Library which show that 70p in every litre goes to VAT and duty. Every time the price of petrol increases, another 17.5 per cent. is added in VAT.
	What is the latest wheeze? What will the Government waste our money on next? Of course, they never say "taxpayers' money". It is always "Government spending" or "Government investment". They really mean that they are taking money from the taxpayers' pockets, and spending it on their pet projects. The next wheeze is that tomorrow, in this House, they will try to get through the final stages of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill—the "Yes Minister" Bill, for short. The House is being asked to set up a department of administrators and bureaucrats to control other administrators and regulators at a cost of £73 million. The idea could have come straight out of "Yes Minister". It is the department of administrative affairs in everything but name and Jim Hacker would have been proud of it.
	At a time of economic crisis, with the Government in complete disarray, what is the Government's solution? It is to set up a department of administrators to administer other administrators. Only this Government could come up with that solution: "Let's create more administrators so that the Government can be more efficient." That is a most courageous decision by the Prime Minister, who is in deep crisis.
	It might be said that saving £71 million here and £73 million there is nothing—it is chickenfeed in relation to the Government's overall spending. Of course, that is true, but if you look after the pennies the pounds look after themselves. In Government terms, if they look after the millions, the billions will look after themselves.
	Let us look at the areas where the Government have really been wasteful at the cost of billions of pounds. Government spending on health care when Labour came into power was £42.7 billion, or under 14 per cent. of public expenditure. That rocketed last year to £107.2 billion, about 20 per cent. of public expenditure. That massive additional cost to the taxpayer has not brought an equivalent improvement in health care. Far from it.
	Health care outcomes, as measured by finished consultant episodes, have risen from just under £12 million in 1998-99 to just under £15 million in 2006-07, an increase of 23.7 per cent. In the same period, Government health spending increased from £47.1 billion to £97.4 billion, an incredible increase of £50.3 billion and a cash increase of 107 per cent. When adjusted for inflation, that was an increase of 74 per cent. The taxpayer is paying, in real terms, 74 per cent. more and getting only a 23 per cent. increase in outcome. That is clearly a massively disproportionate increase. Vast sums of money have been poured into health care but the focus has not been on improving efficiency and outcomes. That money has been wasted at a time when we are in economic crisis.
	Let us look at the cost of living in relation to health care. Unbelievably, that cost is £5,000 a year for each family and each household in the country. It will increase this year to at least £5,200 per household. The next Conservative Government would concentrate on outcomes, not artificial targets and would give power to the clinicians—the people who understand how to improve the quality of health care in this country. That would dramatically improve the outcomes for the public without increasing costs. The Conservatives want to move the operation of the health service out of the hands of politicians, into the hands of doctors and nurses.
	Let me turn now to the real scandal, which is the complete and unjustified waste of taxpayers' money that is our contribution to the European Union. Last year, the net contribution paid to the EU out of taxpayers' pockets was an extraordinary £4.7 billion. It is beyond my comprehension how on earth there could be any justification for paying that sort of money so that we can be part of a free trade area. The truth is that we pay £10.3 billion to Europe and some bureaucrats in Europe decide to give us some back for their pet projects. Our net contribution is £4.7 billion. That would be bad enough, yet the Government have already forced through the House the budget until 2011 and in that year the net contribution that taxpayers will have to pay will be £6.8 billion. We pay £4.7 billion for very little in return, and we are due to increase that by 45 per cent. in 2011.
	Figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that the common agricultural policy adds £10 per week to the average family's cost of living. What do we expect to get from the huge increase in payments to the EU? We have no guarantee that the cost of the CAP will be reduced. My suggestion, which would save an enormous amount of money for the Government without harming us in any way, is to freeze our contribution to the EU at the current £4.7 billion until there is real reform of the CAP, which in turn would reduce the cost of living. Better still, why do we not take a lesson from the previous Conservative Government? When we left power, the contribution to the EU was £1.6 billion.

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman talks about when his party was last in power. Given the previous Conservative Government's "empty chair" policy, how could they possibly negotiate anything from our European partners?

Peter Bone: That intervention really takes the cake! The Minister jumps up and tries to claim that this wonderful Labour Government, who have been in power for 12 years, have had some influence over the EU. If that were true, why have they not done something about the CAP? Why are the world trade talks stalled? It is because the EU is so protectionist. The idea that this Government have been at the heart of Europe is a farce. If they have been at the heart of Europe, they have achieved nothing—and I notice that the Minister is not leaping to her feet to defend the Government's appalling record in the EU—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman provokes me to leap to my feet. I ought to tell him that, although his remarks are occasionally linked to the words "cost of living", they are well outside the terms of the motion. I therefore caution him that we do not want to do the European round too heavily this afternoon.

Peter Bone: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that I was unfairly provoked. I hang my head in shame.
	The serious point about the relationship between the cost of living and our contributions to the EU is that spending such huge sums of money has a real and dramatic effect on the cost of living. However, we could control and cut that expenditure in a way that would not affect a single taxpayer in this country other than to improve the standard of living.
	In conclusion, I believe that the cost of living in this country will continue to rise and the quality of life will continue to go down until we have the next Conservative Government. I am afraid that, until my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) leads the Government, there will be no improvement to our standard of living. The next Conservative Government will control public expenditure, improve the quality of life, and lower taxes.

Mark Oaten: I am not sure that I can agree with the final comment made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). In many ways, I do not believe that the cost of living should be such a party political issue because, as the Minister and others have said, there are many matters that are out of the control of Westminster politicians.
	A lot has been said about the problems of poverty connected to the current change of economic pace, especially for the hardest-hit families. We have talked a lot about fuel poverty, but I want to say something about a group of people, the middle classes, who are often ignored these days. Quite rightly, they are not a political priority, and they are not usually affected by changes to the economy, but my judgment is that the current downturn—or beginning of recession, whatever one may wish to call it—is starting to impact on a new group of people. I am talking about those hard-working couples—they often have two children, and often both parents are working—who risk being ignored by politicians. Suddenly, and for the first time, they are finding that they are being hit very hard indeed by the cost of living. Of course, it is absolutely right that the Government, with their winter fuel allowance and various tax credit schemes, focus on the poorest in society, but let us not ignore those others—the many hard-working individuals—who fall outside the schemes and are suffering and finding things tough. I want to link that point to the groups in rural communities who, given their dependency on vehicles and on certain forms of energy, are finding things particularly tough.
	To try to find out what was going on in my own constituency, I created a non-political survey that was advertised in the local newspaper and did not mention any political parties. I do not for a minute suggest that it is a scientific survey, and I hope that the questions were not leading. I can see that the Minister is cynical about the prospect of any politician being able to put in a newspaper anything without a political word in it, but the survey is totally non-political. I am genuinely interested in finding out some information, and to be perfectly honest, I am not standing at the next election, so there is no political gain from my doing so.
	The responses so far have been quite alarming. They show that the groups being hit by the changing economic climate are not those who are usually hit. The figures suggest that 90 per cent. of people who filled in the survey believe that they are going to be worse off this time next year, and in line with the some of the more respected surveys from various think tanks and groups, there is certainly doom and pessimism about where the situation is heading.
	In the survey, we looked at four indicators: people's attitudes towards food prices, fuel, energy and housing. On each, there was pessimism and concern about what might happen. Petrol is a particular concern for Members who represent large rural constituencies. Often, families are dependent not on one car but on two, and people said to me in the survey that it now costs them about £20 a week more to fill up their cars. I suspect that, anecdotally, we could all say the same. I can remember when it cost me £50 to fill my car up about a year and a half ago; it certainly costs me £70 now. It is the same for my wife, which means that it costs £40 a week extra to fill our car up, and although I was off the day we did maths at school, that to me is a lot of money each month—about £160 a month extra just to fill up the car for many couples living in rural communities.
	That is an awful lot of extra income to find and to absorb, and when the Government and others say, "Yes, but there could be a hidden benefit, in that it might persuade people to use alternative transport," I must say that I would be laughed at in the 56 villages in my constituency if I told people to try to take a bus, a train or another form of transport. For couples with children, trying to do school runs or having to take complicated routes, there is just no rural transport network that can act as a realistic alternative. Some respondents to the survey said that where there had been the opportunity to walk to a post office or to a shop as an alternative, those rural post offices have now disappeared—even more requirement, therefore, to get into the car and absorb those increased petrol costs.
	The second indicator was energy prices, and the survey shows that individuals' electricity, gas and fuel costs have been increased by about 20 per cent. However, owing to the focus on rural areas, I want to talk about those individuals who are not able to obtain gas but are dependent on oil to heat their homes and to provide their fuel. They have faced an enormous increase in costs. I declare an interest, because my monthly direct debit for oil is £225 and has gone up enormously over the past two or three years. If one gathers together any group of individuals in villages or communities that cannot obtain gas, they first talk about trying to find a different oil provider in their area. The figures are enormous, and they are hitting rural communities very hard, because there is just no alternative for them. They cannot switch suppliers as one might do with gas; they are dependent on oil.
	The regulation of gas and electricity would help enormously; I hope that the Minister will pick up on that point in her response. Ofgem and Energywatch are legally required to act as the consumers' champion, to make sure that something at least is done on prices. However, oil for heating one's house and liquefied petroleum gas fall outside the regulatory system. The Minister may or may not be aware that changes to the regulation of energy are due to be made in October and November. It would be enormously helpful to the millions of people who are dependent on oil if that form of fuel were also regulated, and if Ofgem looked at the matter, just as it does in relation to gas and electricity. My fear is that because that form of fuel has not been regulated, companies were able to get away with prices that would not have been acceptable in the gas and electricity markets.
	Democratic Unionist party Members touched on energy prices and on the fact that individuals who pay by pre-pay meters lose out enormously. I am lucky enough to be on the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has just concluded a study of energy prices. When the big six suppliers came to give evidence, I asked them to justify the fact that customers who use pre-pay meters pay 17 per cent. more than those who pay by direct debit. They struggled to do so. They claimed that a meter scheme was more expensive to administer. Of course there will be more administration costs for people who have meters than for people who pay by direct debit, but the increased costs are not equal to the increase in prices. It would help enormously if the Government could speed things up and look at ways of changing the market. The Government could do something about introducing smart meters, as opposed to pre-pay meters; they could help in that respect. Finally on energy, I asked one of the big six to try to give me an indication of how people were coping with increased bills. One of the representatives said that their company's bad debt had doubled in the past 12 months. That graphic statistic shows how difficult individuals are finding it to pay those bills.
	The Minister did not really answer the question that I put to her in an intervention about the comparison between our energy prices and those in mainland Europe. It is my understanding, from the evidence that the Select Committee received, that owing to the way in which our market is constructed, we as consumers pay more for gas and electricity than our colleagues in mainland Europe. They, of course, face the same global economic problems that we do. We need to look at how the market is constructed in this country, because it is adding to our problems.

Peter Bone: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but the reason for that situation is that we have a liberalised energy market, whereas our continental cousins have refused to implement the European Union rules on liberalisation.

Mark Oaten: The Committee has looked into the issue, but I shall not bore hon. Members with that. Anyway, the report is coming out soon, so I probably should not talk about it. However, there are several, complex issues behind the difference between the markets. What disappointed me as a member of the Select Committee was not being able to find two or three simple solutions to the problem. It is incredibly complex, but it certainly needs looking into, because we have a very complicated market. We need to consider restructuring it, but I shall not bore the House with the ways in which that should be done now.
	The third indicator that I wanted to touch on is housing. Let us be honest: in areas such as Winchester, most people's house price has rocketed in the past 10 to 15 years, and they felt very comfortable indeed about the way in which house prices had risen. It is interesting that 50 per cent. of those who filled in my survey said that there had been a fall in their house price. One would imagine Winchester to be one of the last areas in the country that would experience that kind of change. Interestingly, when one asks individuals whether the amount that they pay out each month for their mortgage has increased, the response is split. About half of respondents say that they have experienced an increase, and half say that they have not. I suspect that many of those individuals are still on fixed-term rates, which they have had for some time, and that those fixed-term rates are due to come to an end. In fact, the estimate is that a big change is due this summer, with about £30 billion-worth of mortgages due to come off fixed rates.
	The figures suggest that when the individuals involved try to come off their fixed rates, their average monthly outgoings on their mortgages will increase by about £158 a month. Of course, that is if they can get a satisfactory new rate. It is not just individuals trying to get into the housing market who are struggling to get mortgages but those who are coming off fixed rates. For some, the hike in their rate can have an enormous impact on their monthly bills and the cost of living. It is of concern that in some cases, companies such as Bradford and Bingley, First Direct, the Co-op and the Royal Bank of Scotland—in fact, nearly all of them—have not set lower rates for fixed-rate deals. Many have increased them.
	I wish to mention two consequences of individuals struggling to pay their increased mortgages, or to get a mortgage in the first place. The first is the power of credit agencies to give people a bad rating, and the impact that that has on them. Many of my constituents have discovered that they cannot get a mortgage because three or four years ago, they missed a small payment on a utility or mobile phone bill. It is enormously difficult for people to track down what is affecting their credit rating. Given the credit crunch and the mortgage companies' closer focus on whom they give money to, people need to be able to check more quickly and easily what is on their record that is causing them difficulties in getting credit.
	The other consequence is that many people are now desperately taking out loans for inappropriate things. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that people are doing so to meet fuel bills, and there is a growing pattern of people borrowing money for all the wrong reasons to get themselves out of current financial difficulties. That, of course, perpetuates the problem.
	The fourth and final indicator on which we asked people to comment in our non-scientific survey was food and its cost. The figures suggest that there has been a 20 per cent. increase in weekly food costs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people in my constituency are switching from Waitrose to Asda and desperately trying to find ways to get cheaper food. Perhaps one welcome consequence of what is happening in the economy will be the beginning of a price war between the big supermarkets, which I hope will cut into their profits and make them recognise that they must deliver a better deal for their customers.
	One downside could be that people will change purchasing habits that have had a welcome impact on food welfare. I have strongly supported animal welfare causes such as changing how we purchase chickens. We know that free range eggs and animal welfare food cost a little more, and I think that sadly, individuals will reconsider whether they can afford them or whether they need to cut their costs in the current climate.
	I do not believe that we can ask the Government to do a great deal about those food issues, although if there had been much more encouragement over the years for local food production, and much more work with agriculture in vast parts of the country, we would not have had a food trade deficit. We could have been getting our food from local suppliers, which might just have made a difference.
	I do not offer solutions, but I wanted to reflect on the concerns in my constituency about housing, food, energy and petrol. I have made a couple of suggestions to the Minister, particularly on smart meters and on the regulation of oil, which is causing such difficulty in rural areas. Although I totally understand the focus on the fuel-poor and those on benefits and in poverty, this recession/downturn is starting to hit another set of individuals whom we should perhaps talk about. Ordinary, hard-working families in areas such as Winchester are starting to feel the pinch.

William McCrea: I apologise for not having been here throughout the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was chairing a Committee and so was out of the Chamber for a time.
	This is an important debate on a matter that has an impact on my constituents and people throughout the UK. It does not take a Bank of England economist to tell people that the cost of living is on the increase. That is the reality that everyone is experiencing at present. What the experts call inflation translates for householders and shoppers as higher prices. That is the reality that my constituents and the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member are experiencing.
	In Northern Ireland, because of the water between the mainland and ourselves, people in my constituency and in the Province have experienced increases that other parts of the United Kingdom may not have experienced. In the past year, Northern Ireland has seen price increases of 19 per cent. for electricity, 28 per cent. for natural gas and coal, and 75 per cent. for oil. Combined with other increases in household bills, that gives great urgency to the need to tackle fuel poverty and the problem of many families going into poverty. A recent debate on the subject showed that Members across the House acknowledged the fact that throughout the United Kingdom there are problems.
	While it is true that the Government cannot be blamed for everything or for the problems that have arisen, they have a responsibility to steer the country through the economic difficulties. Whenever things go well, they are happy to claim that that is because of their policies, but if there is an economic downturn, they are happy to blame everybody else. We must therefore make it abundantly clear that there is nowhere for the Government to hide when it comes to their responsibility to govern the United Kingdom. If they do not desire to do so, they should step aside, hold an election and allow another Government to come to power. That is the way in which democracy works, and they have the option to do so.
	While the Government have that responsibility, they must carry it out, and take the United Kingdom through these difficult economic times and the problems that we face. For example, people are finding things hard in Northern Ireland. The Consumer Council for Northern Ireland looked at the problem, and found that we paid 47 per cent. more for energy. Fuel poverty is double the average in Great Britain, and it is three times the percentage in England. Incomes are lower; and half of people who work are on gross earnings of £330 or less a week. Benefit dependency is higher: one in six do not have a current account, compared with one in 10 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Those statistics simply mirror a greater problem, because we are talking about families, individuals, elderly people, disabled people, and normal individuals in society who face a credit crunch, which has impacted on their lives.

Christopher Fraser: I am pleased to attend this debate, albeit that I arrived rather late, because I was chairing a meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that people in rural areas in Northern Ireland, as in Norfolk, suffer the double dilemma of heating their home or buying food, added to which they face the problem that using a car in rural areas is a necessity, not a luxury, as local services have been shut down because of Government initiatives?

William McCrea: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am happy to acknowledge that point. I was coming on to speak about rural constituencies. Many people view a car, or even two cars for a family, as a luxury, but in reality, that is not so. For rural parts of Northern Ireland, Norfolk and any other rural region of the United Kingdom, the car is a necessity. Parents have to take their children to school—they cannot keep them at home. They have to travel to the shops, because the arrival of the supermarkets means that many local shops have closed. We must therefore face the reality: we are not talking about a luxury, and we are not even talking about alternative modes of transport. For example, for people in rural parts of my constituency and other rural areas of Northern Ireland, the only alternative transport would be a horse and cart. Do we want to go back to those days? There are no buses or trains in rural parts, but we are now going to say to the people there that they cannot even use their cars because of fuel costs.
	Let us face the reality. We are talking about the realities for families, and that means fuel costs. The Government bear a responsibility for the situation. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) were talking about percentages; when we add VAT to the fuel costs, we are certainly into the 70 per cent. That is a disgraceful situation, and the vast majority of people do not realise that they are being taken to the cleaners by the Government on fuel taxation. The Government are gaining the benefit.
	On home fuel costs, let us bear this in mind. Gas is not available in many parts of Northern Ireland, so people have no alternative means of heating their homes. Many of our elderly and disabled people are really concerned. We and the Northern Ireland Assembly talk about renewables, but they are for the future, not the present. Unfortunately, we are behind the rest of Europe in taking renewable energy forward, but we are where we are and our people have to deal with the realities. The Northern Ireland fishing industry faces a bleak future; its fuel bills have soared at the very time when Europe demands that it should tie up its boats for most of the year. Fishing is allowed only a few days a year, so how will the fishermen keep their families and fuel their boats? Europe and the Government cannot have it both ways.
	A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) mentioned an important point. We have to look again at where the poverty trap is. Remember that in Northern Ireland wages are in many ways minimum wages. However, hard-working people, who go out every day to work, can be just beyond the boundary of getting any other help or benefit; they have to pay everything from their wages. In my opinion, those people are in a poverty trap today, and they need help.
	The Government must carry a responsibility, because government should be all about seeking to help such people. I mentioned the statistics given by the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland: an extra £60 a week is required for essentials for an average family of four, as at June 2008, because of fuel, food, heating and mortgage rates. To maintain the same standard of living as they had this time last year, the average family's income needs to have risen by 12.5 per cent. Furthermore, even as we speak in the House today, fuel costs are probably still going up.
	We face a tremendous challenge. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) said, we acknowledge that the Government gift for the fuel payment was certainly a move in the right direction. However, as the elderly face this winter, the measure is far short of meeting the real need. I say that not only about Northern Ireland, but about the whole United Kingdom. That situation has to be seriously considered.
	This is an important debate. Other hon. Members want to participate. I trust and pray that we have exercised the Government's mind about the fact that there is a demand across the United Kingdom for us to tackle many of the severe issues affecting our constituents.

Sammy Wilson: Let me make it clear that as a party we do not take any pleasure in the current economic crisis that is affecting people not only in Northern Ireland but right across the United Kingdom. In the motion, we deliberately did not go out of our way to make a party political point against the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) pointed out, the vast majority of people who are watching this debate—if there are any—or who are interested in the issue do not want to know about the macro-economic explanations or the political excuses. They are concerned about how they pay for the uniform that their youngster needs for school in September, how they pay their fuel bill or how they keep their car running. The motion was not designed to be confrontational. Of course, there is no political point for the DUP to make anyhow, because the Government do not put up candidates in Northern Ireland.
	One of the reasons why I am disappointed that the Government found it necessary to table an amendment is that we wanted this debate to explore the possible options for dealing with the issues that are affecting people across the United Kingdom. I sometimes joke with the Scottish National party Members who sit in front of me that since I came into this House, every time there has been a problem the Prime Minister has referred back to 1997, as if all the problems that the Government faced were due to the mismanagement of the Conservative party during its years in government. Nowadays, we never hear him or other Ministers mentioning 1997, because they have found a new way of deflecting the blame: the explanation is not historical but global; the problem is somebody else's fault, or down to influences beyond our control. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) said, while things may well happen on a global stage, Governments cannot run away from their responsibility for managing the economy and dealing with the issues that arise.
	Although we have not made the motion specific to Northern Ireland, Members in all parts of the House have referred to how Northern Ireland specifically is damaged by the increases in the cost of living. Ninety-six per cent. of our energy sources are imported, and therefore volatile in terms of changes in the value of sterling, and oil and gas prices. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) talked about the problems that affect his rural constituency. The same problems have a great impact in Northern Ireland; our communities, who live largely in rural areas, are affected by the kinds of costs that are going up. A higher proportion of people are already on low incomes, and measures such as the 10p tax change have a disproportionate impact on them.
	The situation does have some global reasons behind it, but it has been made worse by actions taken by the Government. I mentioned the 10p tax rate and the impact on the lower-paid. Even after the £2.7 billion compensation package, there will still be people on incomes of less than £7,500 who find themselves worse off at the end of this financial year. The increase in vehicle excise duty will catch 2.3 million households across the United Kingdom, many of whom can afford only second-hand cars. People do not understand why they should face an increased bill of £250 per year in running their car so as to reduce global CO2 emissions. They do not see the connection between the well-being that is supposed to come from such a tax and the immediate problem that it causes them in running their much-needed car.
	The increased tax burden that people across the United Kingdom have faced gives them less disposable income. Since this Government took office in 1997, the tax burden has increased by 6.6 per cent. By the end of 2012, it will have increased by 8 per cent. That means people have less disposable income, which adds to their economic misery at a time of rising costs.
	The Government have slavishly followed EU directives, and I shall just give one example—the idea that we need to get 20 per cent. of our fuel from biofuels by 2020 to cut CO2 emissions. It has already been stated that 75 per cent. of the increase in food costs since 2002 is directly attributable to the fact that we now use grain and land to produce fuels that have no apparent impact on global warming anyway. But we slavishly follow those directives. I just wanted to illustrate some of the ways in which I believe the Government have made the situation worse.
	I shall deal with some of the issues raised, and hon. Members have raised a wide range of them. The impact of the Government's macro-economic policies on people's well-being and on the cost of living in the UK cannot be ignored. In the Minister's defence, I must explain that she referred to the International Monetary Fund. The IMF said—I love this phrase—that the fiscal tightening is appropriate. Let us get down to the bones of it: fiscal tightening means that people get more money taken out of their pockets. They have less disposable income. It is a lovely phrase, and the IMF has endorsed it.
	The IMF has also endorsed the fiscal framework as correct. We start off from a position where Government borrowing has been rising. Since 2000, Government borrowing has risen by 20 per cent., and that borrowing started when we should have been putting money aside for the bad times. If we are talking about an economic situation that has been created by profligacy in the years when there should have been prudence, we may well reach the conclusion that the fiscal framework is correct. However, would that all have been necessary if proper economic policies had been pursued during the years when money should have been set aside?
	Even taking into account the IMF's arguments that fiscal tightening is appropriate and that the fiscal framework is correct, I note that when it comes to a crisis that affects the Government, such fiscal tightening is suddenly no longer quite so important or such a priority. If there is a by-election, or a revolt on the Back Benches against the impact of tax policies on the poor and the less well-off, the fiscal purse strings can be loosened, and £2.7 billion can be produced. The tightening does not seem to matter then.
	The motion says that there is a crisis—one which affects a wide range of people. Those people now find it impossible to pay their fuel bills. They are people on low incomes, or old people who stay at home. It is fine for many of us here; I come to an office that is heated during the day, and I do not have to worry about heating my home. But I think of constituents who are confined to their house all day, who are living on a pension and who have to keep their heat on. When I visit them, I find that some of them have a coat on and a rug around them because they cannot afford to pay their fuel bills. To me, that warrants a little fiscal loosening, especially when money is available from additional fuel duty.
	Let me deal with the Financial Secretary's second point, which several hon. Members supported. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that perhaps there was merit in her argument. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that there should be greater transparency about it. Her argument is that increasing fuel prices do not mean that the Government have more revenue, because as fuel prices increase, people's disposable income decreases, so they spend less money on other things. I could take that if the Government's figures, which they produced in the Budget in March, showed that that was the case, but they do not.
	I assume that the Budget and the figures were drawn up at the last possible moment, when we already knew that fuel prices were increasing. They did not just start to go up in the past month—they have been increasing steadily. The increase has been a bit more rapid in the past couple of months, but prices have been rising for well over a year—well before the figures were produced. Yet, when we consider the matter against that background, and ask whether the Government predicted that VAT receipts would decrease overall or would stay the same, the answer is no. They predicted that in 2006 VAT receipts would be £77.4 billion and that, even with rising fuel prices, they would increase to £83.8 billion in 2008-09. The Government's figures do not bear out the Financial Secretary's argument.
	The same applies to fuel duty, which has increased from £23.6 billion to £25.7 billion. That provides additional money, which could be used—at least partly—to tackle fuel poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made that point. On the Government's own admission, even at a time of rising fuel prices, money is available. If it can be found on other occasions, why cannot it be found now?
	Of course, there are many ways in which spending can be diverted. Although the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) was cut off in his prime, I was interested in his point about Government waste. It was probably just as well for the Financial Secretary that he was cut off for wandering off the subject, but his points were relevant. It is possible, even in the current financial framework, to consider how money might be better spent.
	The motion was designed to start discussion and tease out from the Government how the windfall from rising oil prices could be spent and how to alleviate the difficult position in which many people find themselves. It was not meant to be confrontational, but the Government tabled an amendment that gives excuses rather than dealing with the problems that we wanted tackled.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman mentioned rising oil prices. It was said earlier today in the Chamber that an extra dollar on the price of an oil barrel gives the Government an extra £200 million in revenue.

Sammy Wilson: The Government predicted that the oil price increases anticipated at the time of the Budget—which were much lower than what subsequently transpired—meant that they would have £5.4 billion more in the next financial year.
	Perhaps the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has an answer to the problem, but, as several hon. Members pointed out—even those who were supportive, such as the hon. Member for Twickenham—if there is an economic model that shows no overall financial gain, it should at least be transparent. I know from teaching economics in school that the one cardinal rule when examining the way in which one variable affects another is that unless all other things are equal—the old ceteris paribus; even a GCSE economics student will know that—it is not possible to identify the cause and effect of a specific economic event. If the Economic Secretary intends to argue against the points that have been made, there should be transparency and an explanation of how the conclusion that the Financial Secretary outlined was reached.
	The Government have made a lot of the right noises today. The Financial Secretary started by expressing sympathy. The Government very often make the right noises on such issues and sometimes they even do the right things. She made the point, which I accept, that for many years the economy in Northern Ireland has been good. We have experienced the lowest rates of unemployment. I want to acknowledge that, because I do not want this debate to be seen as all negative. However, too often the Government have made the wrong decisions. Unfortunately, I believe—and I think that many of their own Back Benchers would accept this, too—that they appear to be out of touch. That will be fatal.

Kitty Ussher: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been an interesting and timely debate, even though we might have a slight sense of déjà vu, having debated a similar subject only a couple of weeks ago. Let me add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on securing this debate, and to his colleagues on making their points so clearly.
	In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the country, it is clear that the prices of food and fuel, and energy bills, are rising and that families are feeling the pinch as a result. That is no surprise, given the recent state of world oil and food prices, with oil up by 80 per cent. and food up by 40 per cent. in the year to May. However, Opposition Members may not like this, but it is a fact that our economy is well placed to respond to the disadvantageous global scenario, and that it is coping far better than it could have done in the past.
	Oil prices have increased fivefold in the last five years, in what is widely being described as the third oil price shock in living memory, but this time headline inflation has risen by less than 2 percentage points, as compared with a rise of nearly 20 percentage points during the first oil price shock in the mid 1970s and a rise of more than 10 percentage points during the second shock in the early 1980s. That, if nothing else, is a demonstration of the increased resilience of our economy after 11 years of low inflation—the second lowest in the G7, in fact—and steady and strong growth.

Christopher Fraser: Can the Minister explain why, if we have the cheapest diesel in the Europe and the second lowest price for unleaded petrol, we pay the most tax?

Kitty Ussher: That is not the case. In fact, we have fallen down the ranking in fuel duty taxation compared with other countries in Europe. Including tax and duty, the UK has the seventh lowest petrol price in the EU 15 and the 19th lowest in the EU 27. We have fallen from our habitual rank, when the Conservative party was in power, of second highest in the EU 15 to around the middle of the range, so I would politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman check his facts.
	In the past 10 years, real household disposable income has risen substantially, by more than 30 per cent., and income per head has risen faster than in any other G7 country, taking us from the bottom of the pile to second place. We are now second in the G7 in terms of GDP per capita, whereas before 1997 we were bottom. We have experienced the fastest rise in income per head of any G7 country since 1997. Real disposable income increased by 25 per cent. between 1997 and 2006. Most importantly, growth for the bottom 40 per cent. of people in our country is greater than that for richer households. Employment has also risen by around 3 million, to record highs. The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) tried to imply that things were worse under this Government than under previous Governments, but the facts do not bear her out.
	In Northern Ireland, as my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, the economy is stronger, with unemployment halved—it is now the third lowest of any UK region—and 100,000 more people in work than was the case under the previous Conservative Government. We are seeing progress all the time, as the new era of stability in Northern Ireland brings new investment and jobs. This means that Northern Ireland, like the rest of the UK, can respond far more strongly to the challenges that we all face. We cannot be complacent, however. We need to work to tackle the causes of these challenges and to support people in the meantime.
	Obviously, no national Government by themselves can stop world fuel and food prices rising or end a global credit squeeze, but we are working with our international partners at every level, because these challenges need international solutions. As I have said, we also need to support people in the meantime. We are doing that through the delay in the planned April fuel duty increase and, yes, the Chancellor is carefully considering the October increase. We are also supporting people through the increases in personal allowances this year and through the additional payments that will be made with the winter fuel payment this winter in the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland. We will continue to support people in that way.
	I want to turn now to the specific points that have been raised in today's very useful debate. We challenged the hon. Member for Putney about her own policy during her speech. She mentioned a fuel stabiliser policy, but, when challenged, she said that it was not a policy, simply a consultation. That is yet another example of the Conservatives using salesman-like tactics to get in through the front door of our nation's households, even though they would be unable to follow them through.

Justine Greening: When Ministers have gone through the absolute disaster of not consulting properly on issues such as non-doms and capital gains tax, the one lesson that they ought to take from us is on consultation. It is sensible to consult, to make sure that we get things right first time. That is something that we have learned from the Government's getting it wrong.

Kitty Ussher: I confidently look forward to this so-called consultation being quietly dropped because the plan simply would not work. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) gave one reason why it would not work, with which I absolutely agree. His understanding of the Conservatives' consultation/policy/not-quite-sure-what-we're-talking-about was that it would rely on a cyclical oil price, so that households and motorists could be subsidised when oil prices rose, and it would pay itself back when the oil price was in the other half of its cycle. He rightly pointed out, however, that that would not work because oil prices are not cyclical.
	However, the main problem with the Conservatives' consultation/policy/not-quite-sure-what-we're-talking-about is that it would require an automatic correlation between the international price of oil and the effect on the public purse. They are effectively saying that if the international oil price rose because of decisions taken in different countries by OPEC, there would automatically be a channel of funding that would go from the public purse to the motorist. If I were a nurse, a doctor or a teacher in this country, I would be extremely worried by what the Conservatives might, or might not, be proposing.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) finished what might politely be called a wide-ranging speech by saying that his was the party that would control public expenditure. At the same time, however, those on his own Front Bench are saying that they would not control public expenditure, but would simply hand out taxpayers' money on the basis of what was happening to the international oil price.

Peter Bone: The doctors, nurses and policemen who would have their fuel prices reduced by the stabiliser would welcome that policy. This party is interested in looking after the consumer. The Government are trying to reduce their borrowing because of their inefficient running of the economy.

Kitty Ussher: It is the overall state of the economy that we are interested in, and we will not play fast and loose with the public finances through cheap gimmicky policies like those being proposed by the Conservative salesperson in order to get in through the front door.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who is no longer in his place, made a useful contribution to the debate and raised several issues to which I should like to respond. First, he expressed understandable concern that the price of oil is being driven by speculators, and asked whether we could intervene to prevent trading in oil futures. The issue is being looked into by the Financial Services Authority, although I have to say that there has been no indication of any inappropriate inactivity.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend asked what we were doing to help people to cope. We understand, of course, as I said in my opening statement, the significant difficulties faced by families feeling the pinch. At such a time, it is right for the Government to use whatever resources are at their disposal to ensure that everybody—whether they be working class or middle class—has access to good impartial advice.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) mentioned the middle classes, but I am not accusing everyone on the Liberal Democrat Benches of actually being middle class.
	We want everybody to have good financial advice in what we all recognise as a difficult time. That is why in recent weeks we have expanded by £10 million our debt advice funding and why, together with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, we made a substantial policy announcement earlier this week on the whole issue of financial capability. That includes not only a significant £12 million pilot in the north-east and north-west, taking forward the work of Otto Thoresen in order vastly to improve access to so-called generic or non-product-tied financial advice, but rolling out a programme through schools and the workplace for accessing good financial advice at this important time. That involves an expanded helpline available nationally, including to people in Northern Ireland, as a one-stop shop to signpost people to the advice most suited to their needs.

Christopher Fraser: If the Minister is saying that the Government are serious about people suffering from fuel poverty, why have they cut the Warm Front budget for the next three years?

Kitty Ussher: My experience is that the services offered through Warm Front are expanding. We have the potential to do that, and I certainly see increasing numbers of people in my own constituency taking advantage of what Warm Front has to offer.
	Let me address an issue raised by Members of all parties—whether the Government have a tax revenue windfall from the rise in oil prices. The simple answer is that there is absolutely no correlation between the international price of oil and what the Government actually receive. That is one reason why the hon. Member for Putney is wrong to imply that money is necessarily coming in; as I said in an earlier intervention, an analysis done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that.

Justine Greening: rose—

Kitty Ussher: May I give way after I have finished explaining my point, as it may answer the hon. Lady's question?
	The key point is that we cannot look at North sea revenues in isolation. Higher oil prices will, of course, boost revenues from petroleum revenue tax and North sea corporation tax, but a number of offsetting effects limit the overall impact on the public finances. We have already made this argument: fuel duty is set as a constant amount per litre of fuel sold, and it does not go up as a result of fuel price rises. When consumer spending on fuel goes up, there is likely to be a separate effect elsewhere in the economy, leaving the overall level of VAT revenues broadly unchanged. Of course businesses, including road hauliers, can reclaim the VAT that they spend on fuel as well.
	Higher oil prices have temporarily pushed up inflation, and as most tax and social security benefits are linked to inflation, this will reduce income tax receipts and boost Government spending from April 2009. Higher inflation also increases the cost of servicing index-linked bonds, and higher oil costs could mean smaller profits for companies that have to spend more of their income on fuel, thus leading to reduced Government receipts from that source, and all this depends on the impact on the wider economy. I hope that that picks up a number of points raised by Members in the debate. We will, of course, update all our forecasts in the pre-Budget report.

Justine Greening: The Minister says that there is "absolutely no correlation" between oil prices and Government revenues. Is she really saying that the Government have some random way of assessing revenues, depending on oil price changes? Surely, there has to be a model showing some kind of correlation, albeit a complex one.

Kitty Ussher: I do not think the hon. Lady understood what I just said. I said that there was no automatic correlation between an oil price rise and the overall effects on the public finances. Many other factors are involved, such as the way in which mechanisms operate throughout the economy. As I said, we will update all our forecasts for revenues and the wider economy at the time of the pre-Budget report.
	I do not want to intervene in the debate between the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, but I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for his mixed metaphor about the Celtic tiger which had been on fire withering on the vine. I shall bear it in mind when I consider the economy of the Republic of Ireland.
	The United Kingdom is well placed to respond to the international economic challenges that we face. That also goes for Northern Ireland, where the economy is far stronger than in the past, partly because of the Government's economic policies but also, of course, because of the new era of stability. Politicians in Northern Ireland have had the chance to build on that stability and to secure more investment and more jobs by completing devolution, which includes signalling their willingness to achieve agreement on the transfer of policing and criminal justice powers.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister presumably accepts that she is a member of a Government who, for whatever reason, are deeply unpopular at the moment, as a sequence of by-elections appears to show. Today's debate raised a core issue affecting tens of millions of people throughout the United Kingdom, and gave the Government an opportunity to introduce steps to deal with the deepening problems that people are facing out there. Is not their lack of ideas in this regard an example of what makes them so deeply unpopular?

Kitty Ussher: We present policies at the appropriate time. We make our economic forecasts at the time of the Budget and the pre-Budget report.
	All politicians in Northern Ireland have a responsibility to build on the stability that has already been granted through the peace process, and we all have a responsibility to play our part to secure more investment and jobs by completing devolution. That is not to say, however, that families are not feeling the pinch, in Northern Ireland as much as elsewhere. Energy bills, petrol and food are all significantly more expensive than they were a year ago, and that is creating tougher times.
	The motion calls on us to look at new ways of helping those on low and medium incomes. Of course we are always happy to hear new ideas, and we will always do our best for the people of this country—

Peter Bone: rose—

Justine Greening: rose—

Kitty Ussher: I will not give way.
	The Government have done a huge amount for people on lower incomes over the last 11 years through tax credits, the national minimum wage and measures for pensioners in particular, such as pension credit. Many of those measures were opposed by the Conservatives. Those policies have supported people in every part of the UK. We are continuing to support the people of this country during difficult times, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 292.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) :—
	 The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 195.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes that the Governor of the Bank of England's letter of 16th June 2008 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 1.1 per cent. of the 1.2 per cent. increase in recent months in inflation was due to global energy and food prices; further notes the Government's global leadership and supports the Government's action to tackle price rises with action on an international level, including pushing for a successful conclusion to the Doha round of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation and examining the impact of biofuels on food production; acknowledges the significant increases in world prices, with the oil price rising by 80 per cent. and food prices up by 60 per cent. in the 12 months to May 2008; recognises that these increases in global prices affect every country and put real pressure on family budgets throughout the UK; further acknowledges that the measures that the Government has taken and will continue to take to support families, individuals and businesses throughout the UK include extra tax credits, increased tax allowances, further winter fuel payments and increases in child benefit; considers that a strong and stable economy delivers the most important support for working families; and supports the Government's actions that have delivered unemployment, inflation and interest rates all at historically low levels.

Deferred divisions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we go on to the next item of business, I must announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008, the Ayes were 249, the Noes were 56, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the motion on the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order 2008, the Ayes were 249, the Noes were 56, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the motion on the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 2008, the Ayes were 285, the Noes were 118, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division List s are published at the end of today's debates.]

Council Tax

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we start the debate, it may help if I offer the House guidance on the scope of debate on the order. The order applies to Lincolnshire police authority. The authority was originally considered for capping, along with six other police authorities and Portsmouth city council. The debate may cover the position of Lincolnshire police authority and refer to the fact that the other seven authorities are not to be capped, but it would not be in order to focus exclusively on those authorities that are not being capped, as they are not covered by the order. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

John Healey: I beg to move,
	That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Maximum Amounts) (England) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
	The order will be made under section 52F(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it caps the rise in council tax levied by Lincolnshire police authority this year. It is the only one of our decisions on eight designated authorities that requires parliamentary action at this stage, and that decision is therefore the focus of our debate this afternoon. Subject to the House's approval, the order will be made, and I will issue a notice to the Lincolnshire authority about its maximum 2008-09 budget requirement—in other words, its cap. The authority will then have to recalculate its budget so that it is at or below that maximum, and recalculate its precept on the council tax. It will then have to arrange for the district councils, as billing authorities, to send out revised council tax bills for the current year.
	In December and February, I said in statements to the House on the formula grant distribution for 2008-09 that keeping council tax under control remains a high priority for the Government. I said that we expected the average council tax increase in England to be substantially below 5 per cent. this year. I also said that we would not hesitate to use our reserve council tax capping powers as necessary to protect council tax payers from excessive council tax increases. No authority could have been unclear about our intent.
	Most authorities recognised the public concern about council tax levels, particularly at this time, when all households are under pressure. Some 98 per cent. of authorities did not set excessive increases; two thirds set increases below 4.1 per cent.; one in six set increases below 2.5 per cent. this year; and a further 21 authorities either did not increase council tax or reduced it. That means that this year there has been the lowest average increase in council tax for 14 years at just 4 per cent. Alongside that, by 2010-11, central Government grant for local government will have increased by 45 per cent. above inflation, and it has consistently remained above inflation each and every year for the past decade. Also, investment in police has more than doubled since 1997, with an extra £3.6 billion. Funding is higher and councils are deciding to keep tax rises lower. The threat of council tax capping is helping to keep those rises down.
	However, a small minority of authorities imposed excessive increases on their council tax payers. As a result, as I explained in my statement to the House on 27 March, we designated eight authorities—seven police authorities and one local authority—with a view to capping them in-year. All eight authorities challenged their proposed cap, as is their right. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing and I met all seven police authorities together to hear their cases in person, and I also met Portsmouth city council to hear its case. Having considered carefully the representations that they made to us, I made a statement to the House on 26 June.

Keith Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which both he and the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing accepted representations from Leicestershire police authority and others for which caps were proposed. My hon. Friend has said that Leicestershire will be capped next year. Can he confirm that he will be prepared to accept more representations before finally deciding on next year's position?

John Healey: That will indeed be the case. We propose to designate Leicestershire, Warwickshire and Cheshire police authorities for next year and allow them a maximum council tax increase of 3 per cent. When we formally announce the confirmation of that, there will be an opportunity for them to make representations, which we will take into account. I wish to signal clearly that we intend to follow through the decision that I announced on 26 June in respect of my right hon. Friend's police authority.
	We are protecting council tax payers in those three counties, and we will protect others by setting a lower threshold for capping in future years for Bedfordshire, Norfolk and Surrey police authorities and Portsmouth city council. Finally, we will protect council tax payers in Lincolnshire by going ahead with setting a maximum budget requirement for the police authority, although at a higher level than I proposed on 27 March. It will be equivalent to a 26 per cent. increase in council tax, rather than the 79 per cent. increase that it planned.
	We are satisfied that all eight authorities can live with the action that we have taken and that none of the seven police authorities will need to reduce their number of police officers as a result.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister has fairly said that this is to be effectively a standstill budget for Lincolnshire. Does he accept that given that, Lincolnshire police will not be able to improve its services in either the current year or future years?

John Healey: The police authority told us that to put in place a balanced budget, it needed £5.3 million more than our proposed cap would have allowed, which included the cost of rebilling. We have gone further than that and allowed an increase of £5.7 million. It has confirmed in a press release that there will be no redundancies as a result of the decision, and it must now take the tough decisions that every police authority and local authority has to take. It must decide how to make the efficiencies that are needed and improve services at the same time within a tough budget and tough financial circumstances. I am confident that it will be able to do that.

John Hayes: The Minister has acknowledged in the House that Lincolnshire has specific problems, and he was good enough to seek and receive representations from the authority. Given the history of policing in Lincolnshire, the need to develop the service offered is profound—a "rock-solid" case, in the chief constable's words. The budget may allow Lincolnshire police to stand still, but surely it will not allow it to grow and develop in the way that it wishes.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is always assiduous in making a strong case for his area's interests, but the police authority budget, following the action that I have proposed to the House, means that the authority will have more than £10 million above the level of last year's budget. It can add a 26 per cent. rise on its council tax precept, which is more than it said that it needed to set a balanced budget. We have taken into careful account the full case made by the authority, both in writing and in person to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who, I am pleased to say, is sitting on the Front Bench, and to me.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he has been extremely generous. Does he accept and acknowledge that the very fact that he has allowed a 26 per cent. increase in the precept supports the Opposition's view that there are serious problems with Home Office funding for Lincolnshire police authority funding?

John Healey: The decision reflects aspects of the case, to which we listened carefully and which we accepted, made by the police authority, which challenged our original decision under the set process. However, the hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that this year Lincolnshire police authority has received the fourth-largest rise in police grant of any police authority in the country. It is therefore not the case—this cannot seriously be argued—that the Government have not taken into account the pressures faced by Lincolnshire police authority. It is not right—I have not heard any Opposition Member argue for this—that that police authority should be able to impose a 79 per cent. increase in council tax on Lincolnshire council tax payers this year.

Lembit �pik: Perhaps the Minister has missed the principle. I served on Newcastle city council when it was capped by a Conservative Government, and I remember the objections from the Labour party and Labour councillors to the principle of central Government making that diktat. Surely, it is up to voters in the local area to make the judgment and decide whether they agree with the decisions and so on, rather than requiring an intervention from Westminster.

John Healey: These are reserve powers. The decision to cap is not one that the Government take lightly. I am the Minister for Local Government, and I hear that argument from local government all the timeit is almost a canon of the case that it makes to Government. In past years, where there has been no threat of the use of council tax capping, there have been average rises of up to 12.9 per cent. It is not fair on local council tax payers if authorities set excessive increases. It is right that we have a reserve power and that we use it carefully and in a considered way, which is precisely how we have used it in the circumstances that we face this year.

Lembit �pik: I do not want to pursue a dialogue with the Minister, but he cannot have it both ways. Either he is saying that capping is an acceptable principle, in which case Labour would have been wrong to oppose it in the Conservative years, or alternatively he must accept the case that I have made, which is that it is wrong in principle, whatever one thinks about the 79 per cent. increase, for central intervention to squeeze out local democratic control.

John Healey: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Liberal Democrats would abolish council tax capping. I mentioned earlier the risk that that poses to many council tax payers in local authority areas. It may not be desirable, but my argument is that it is necessary, which is why we have those powers in legislation. It is necessary in the particular case of Lincolnshire police authority this year. We are using those powers, and I have explained to the House and set out in the order precisely how and at what level we propose to do so.
	Parliamentary procedure is required to consider and approve the order in relation to Lincolnshire police authority for this year. Parliamentary procedure will be required for the three authorities that we propose to designate and restrict to a 3 per cent. increase next year and the following year. No parliamentary procedure is involved in setting notional budget requirements, as we have done for the other four nominated authorities.
	As I have said, the Government do not make decisions lightly about capping and the use of the powers. However, there is no excuse for setting an excessive council tax increase, and we remain ready to use the powers when necessary. I hope and believe that many peopleparticularly those on fixed incomes, such as pensionerswill welcome our determination to reduce the council tax burden in Lincolnshire this year. That will also help to protect residents in other authorities against excessive increases in future years.
	The reduction in Lincolnshire on the average band D property this year as a result of the action that I am proposing this afternoon will be more than 69. That, of course, will require rebilling in Lincolnshire. The extra costs will fall on the police authority, but it can have no complaints about that. Rebilling is an inevitable consequence of setting an excessive increase and of being capped in-year. All authorities know that, and the best way to avoid rebilling is not to set an excessive increase in the first place.

Bob Neill: I do not intend to interrupt the Minister again. Simply for information, may I ask him whether any calculation has been made in the discussions with Lincolnshire about the costs of rebilling, which, as he says, will fall on the police authority?

John Healey: Lincolnshire proposed some costs for the likely rebilling exercise. In its press release responding to my statement of 26 June, the Association of Police Authorities confirmed that the cost would be approximately 500,000.

Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend state the saving to a band D householder in Lincolnshire as a result of the measures that the Government are implementing this afternoon, compared with the costs that would have arisen had the precept that the Lincolnshire police authority proposed been accepted?

John Healey: That is an important question; it is the question that many people in Lincolnshire will ask. The answer is 69.56.
	People are not prepared to accept excuses for high council tax increases, either this year or in future; nor are the Government. I put all authorities on notice that we will not tolerate excessive increases in future years and that we are prepared to use our capping powers to protect council tax payers. I commend the order to the House.

Bob Neill: I thank the Minister for the careful and courteous way in which he has introduced the order. I am sure that the House will appreciate that. I understand that, technically, the order relates simply to the situation in Lincolnshire, and I certainly want to respect the terms of the debate. But however careful and measured the tone that the Minister has adopted in introducing the order, he cannot escape the fact that what we are discussing today is a symptom of a wider malaise, for which the Government have to take responsibility.
	That wider malaise is made up, first, of the consistent and remorseless upward pressure on council tax. That affects not only people in Lincolnshire and the other authorities that were originally considered, but people right across the country. The malaise also consists of the tight financial settlement under which those authorities and others across the country find themselves. We must not forget that the Government cannot say that they are seeking to protect council tax payers in Lincolnshire while escaping the responsibility, which has to lie with them, for that underlying malaise.
	The increase in council tax is down to Government policy. The tightness of the financial settlement that affects those authorities is, again, the direct result of Government policy. It is worth reminding the House that for all the Minister's words about the protection of council tax payers, his Government have seen council tax double in the past 10 years. The tightness of the financial settlement, described by the Association of Chief Police Officers as the tightest settlement for police authorities in years, was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) pointed out when the matter was first debated in the House, the direct consequence of a macro-economic problemthe borrowing problemthat the Government have got themselves into.
	The simple fact is that the Government wasted money when it was available. They borrowed too much, and now they have to tighten up on the funding that is available to local authorities. Local authorities are feeling the pinch, and that means reductions in budgets or pressure on council tax. The Government are introducing this order because of a situation that is ultimately of their creation and their responsibility. That needs to be set in context.
	I know that several right hon. and hon. Members from Lincolnshire want to participate in the debate, so I will not go into much local detail. However, it clearly cannot be justified to say that Lincolnshire is historically a particularly profligate authority; indeed, the evidence suggests that police funding in Lincolnshire, in terms of spend per head and so on, is comparatively low.

Douglas Hogg: I think that my hon. Friend will find that our hon. Friends will say that there is a structural problem with the grant in Lincolnshire that needs to be addressed. I do not expect him to give a guarantee today of what we will do when we get into government, but I hope that if and when that happens, we will look urgently at the grant to see whether it is truly unfair to Lincolnshire. If, as I believe, that is the case, we will alter it to make more resources available to the county and to the police force in particular.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for making that point, which he raised when the funding settlement was originally discussed in this House. In that debate, he said that it seemed pretty clear to many local people that there is a problem with the operation of the national grant in relation to Lincolnshire, as well as in Leicestershire, which also figured in the discussions. It was clear that several authorities in that part of England were suffering from this.

Mark Simmonds: I want to make my hon. Friend aware that the operation of the funding formula is so penal in its impact on Lincolnshire that in the financial year 2003-04 its police authority was the only one in England and Wales to have its per capita funding cut.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend has reinforced the point. In the earlier debate, the Government were put on notice of this situation. It was clearly flagged up that, in addition to the other pressures that I have mentioned, the financial risk as regards the financing of the police service had in effect been transferred away from the Government on to the citizens of Lincolnshire. A perverse situation has developed.
	This is yet another example of the situation whereby, first, we are reaching a stage where the capping regime in this form has gone beyond its useful lifespan, and secondly, it is demonstrably clear that the way in which the formula works is not transparent or seen to be fair. That applies not only to police authorities but to local authorities generally. There are problems with the national police funding formula and with the formula for the revenue support grant. People do not have faith in how these settlements are calculated. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Higg) has said, in due course an incoming Conservative Government will need to take some fundamental action on how we allocate and distribute grant.
	The Government are trying to shift and shuffle responsibility. I see that the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is here. He is very good at shifting and shuffling responsibility [ Interruption ]and making sedentary comments as he goes. That is a speciality of his; we are all used to it now, and he may as well know that it goes straight over my head, so he can save his breath.
	The reality is that the Government created this situation by their own economic incompetence and made it worse by a lack of transparency and honesty in how they have dealt with local government. Despite having been given early notice of the problem by right hon. and hon. Members representing the areas concerned, they did nothing to address the structural problems; instead, they are applying a sticking plaster, in the form of the capping power, far too late.
	At the end of the day, of course, the official Opposition will not oppose this order, but we have to set the record straight and say that it is not entirely fair to point the finger at Lincolnshire and the police authority. The Government should turn the mirror on themselves and accept that this is the consequence of their policy and their failure. Sadly, it is the people of Lincolnshire who have to face the consequences.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). We served together on the Select Committee on Justice. He did not blame the Government quite as much in that Committee as he did tonight. I have to differ from him; it is not the Government's fault that they have to cap Lincolnshire. As we heard from the Minister, the Government have been generous to the extent that they allowed an increase well above that they allowed other authorities.
	I do not claim to know everything about the way in which policing operates in Lincolnshire, but as the House knows, Leicestershire was one of the police authorities originally proposed for capping, and following representations made to the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who is on the Front Bench today, the Government decided not to cap it, but may do so next year. Hence my intervention on the Minister to ensure that there will be an opportunity before that process begins for authorities that were not capped this year to make representations.
	Members representing constituencies in Lincolnshire, on both sides of the House, will want to make specific points about what the Opposition spokesperson described as structural problems affecting policing in that area, which they feel justifyor notthe proposed increase put to the Government. I shall confine my remarks to concern about the number of police authorities that were originally proposed for capping, which will also be of interest to those in Lincolnshire. It is a worry because a problem that is developing may develop further in future. It means that the Government and police authorities will have to take a closer look at a situation where for the first timeperhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrongseven of the eight authorities that would have been affected were police authorities.
	Next week, the Government will publish their response to Sir Ronnie Flanagan's report, which looks at the issue of a more efficient, more effective police force. I do not expect either of the Ministers here today to tell us what is in that response, but during the past six months, as we conducted our review into policing, I and my colleagues in the Select Committee found that the issue of police funding came up in all our discussions. It was raised by almost all the chief constables we spoke toI think that we took evidence from 15 of the 42 chief constables in England and Wales, but unfortunately not the chief constable of Lincolnshire. Each one of them raised the issue of funding.
	I shall raise three issues that I hope will be of benefit not just to the Lincolnshire police authority, but to other police authorities that may face such action next year. The first concerns new technology. It is a mystery to me why each different police authority is able to purchase its own equipment separately at whatever cost it negotiates. Surely procurement for all our police forces, including Lincolnshire, would ensure that the cost to all of them would be less. That may have meant that Lincolnshire would not have had to ask for such a rise.
	In Leicestershire, new technologyhand-held computers was purchased from a different company to the one that I discovered was used by Staffordshire when I visited Staffordshire constabulary last Friday. It purchases from a different company from Greater Manchester police authority, which the Select Committee visited on Monday. More central guidance, with all police forces procuring equipment from the same company, would save a great deal of money and make it relatively easy for police authorities to communicate with each other. That applies to other computers and technology as well as hand-held computers.
	Different authorities may buy different computer systems from different companies, thus making it difficult in some cases to transfer data from one to another. We already know that there is a problem with, for example, Lincolnshire's ability to provide information through Europol to police authorities in Europe, because it operates a different computer system.
	I am sure that the Government have made the right decision, because I know that both Ministers will have examined the representations carefully. However, we should consider such matters, because police authorities generally could benefit.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Home Affairs Committee had received many comments from chief constables to the effect that there are problems with the formula. He is Chairman of the Select Committee, and it might be in its remit, and a useful exercise, to undertake a study of the formula's operation, with particular though not exclusive regard to the interests of some of the shire countiesLincolnshire is onewhere it is believed that the formula does not work fairly.

Keith Vaz: Clearly, the Select Committee may examine that subject in future. We are reaching the end of our six-month inquiry into policing in the 21st century. The choreography has been slightly out of synch with the Government's timetable, because the Green Paper will be published after our last evidence session, which is with the Mayor of London next Tuesday. However, we may revert to the subject in future. If the police Minister decides that it should feature in the Green Paper, or if the Government want us to re-examine amalgamations, which the newspapers suggested todaywe do not know, because the statement will be made next week, and I am simply repeating what I have readthe Select Committee will clearly want to consider the formula.
	The formula causes me concern because, as I said, seven authorities are police authorities. At a time when we need to put as many resources as possible into policing, it is worrying that so many authorities, including Lincolnshire, are police authorities. I have not examined in the same great detail as Ministers the case that each police authority has made, but we need to consider the way in which they operate if we are to be helpful in future.
	Secondly, let me consider police efficiencies. Again, I do not want to prejudge the Green Paper that the police Minister will publish next week, but I am sure that he will refer to Sir Ronnie Flanagan's proposed efficiencies. We have taken evidence from Sir Ronnie Flanagan. Of course, efficiencies should occur in the police service in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and all the other areas, but it is essential that that does not detract from visible policing.
	Last Friday, I went to Burton on Trent, where I met the divisional commander with the local Member of Parliament, who is a member of the Select Committee, and we examined Staffordshire's innovative approach to reducing bureaucracy and red tape. It had reduced casework files from 16 pages to one page. I do not know whether that has happened in Lincolnshire; nor am I sure whether it has occurred in Leicestershire, because I have not asked our chief constable.  [Interruption.] The police Minister claims that that has happened. It is another example of good practice that should be rolled out in other parts of the country, thus releasing, in the words of Sir Ronnie Flanagan, a great deal of police time. Some say that the reduction of red tape can release up to 50 minutes of a police officer's time. If one compares that with the number of police officers in Lincolnshire, it will mean a huge saving in hours. It would be interesting to know whether other authorities do that.

John Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but would he differentiate between the burden on police officers as a result of bureaucracy, much of which, although not all, comes from this Government, and the efficiency of the authority? The Government commissioned an investigation of the authority by PricewaterhouseCoopers that found only minimal room for savings, which would have made little difference to the fundamental funding crisis that we are discussing today.

Keith Vaz: As I said at the start, the hon. Gentleman knows much more about what is happening in Lincolnshire than I do. However, the reduction in a case file from 16 pages to one page makes a huge time-saving difference for police officers, as do hand-held computers.
	If an officer can write down their report on a hand-held computer when they are on the scene, it will be more accurate than if they do so when they return to the police station. We have several distinguished silks in the Chamber today, who will be used to police officers reading out from their notebooks in court. Probably the first question that they ask is, When did you make up your notes? If an officer has a hand-held computer at the scene of an incident, they can immediately make up their notes on the spot and check so much more informationwho owns the car, whether it is stolen and all that kind of stuff.
	The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to my final point, which concerns the number of laws that we pass in this place and the burden that we place on the police, including the police in Lincolnshire. Another great statistic produced by Sir Ronnie Flanagan is that stop and search results in 48,000 hours of police time spent meeting targets and ensuring that, for every stop and search carried out, certain forms are filled in that eventually find their way into the Home Office somewhere. Obviously it is important that there should be recording of certain activities and events, but I am not sure whether we should record every event in the way that we have in the past.
	The situation in Lincolnshire is probably different from that in other parts of the country, because it is up to the police authority and the chief constable to decide on certain issues. Certain chief constables have said that there is no need to fill in certain forms. Others have felt that they are obliged to follow everything that the Home Office says. It is important that we should have one practice throughout the country. However, this is not a plea for central control, and it will not save Lincolnshire tonight, because it seems that the Opposition will not vote against the Government, even though the Opposition spokesman is very cross at what they are doing.
	There is more that we can do. I urge the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who I know listens and takes on good practice as much as he can, to see whether any good practice can be rolled out in other authorities, so that we do not find next year that other police authorities like Leicestershire are subject to a cap. If that sounds like an early plea for Leicestershire, it is. I have not dwelt on Leicestershire, in view of your strictures at the start of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope very much that the Minister will take what I have said into account when he makes any decisions in the future.

Lembit �pik: This rare usage of the central check on council tax goes to show, with more significance than ever before, the severe lack of funding for police authorities, which has left Lincolnshire police authority with no conceivable choice but to use its council tax precepts to try to improve its service. The decision is embarrassingly last-minute and will cause huge disruption to the police service planning to use those funds. Furthermore, the administrative costs of changing the council tax increase will be disproportionate to the benefits that it will reap. Indeed, the Minister has already told us the colossal cost of changing the plan.
	This situation has come about because the tight police funding settlement has left police authorities with relatively little choice. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), a great deal of work has to be done, and that is increasing all the time because we pass too many laws in this place. Unsurprisingly, it therefore follows that certain police authorities, including Lincolnshire, feel obliged to make substantial increases in the council tax demand in order to achieve their goal.
	The 2008-09 settlement was the tightest for many years, with a 2.7 per cent. grant increase. It will be 2.8 per cent. in 2009-10 and 2010-11. That is effectively a real-terms freeze, or perhaps a contracting budget if inflation does as we fear it will. The needs formula is obviously seriously flawed, and some areas are already missing out on additional grant resources that the formula itself says they need. This will simply exacerbate the existing problems.
	The police authorities are forced to make up the shortfalls through the council taxthey have no other way of doing it. Yet again, the Government's spending squeeze has pushed the responsibility on to police authorities, yet the Government are blaming them for shortfalls created by underfunding from central Government. That is the paradox. A police authority can find itself being capped for trying to achieve the income that it needs to fulfil the targets that it has been set by the Government. That is why so many people are angry about this, and it goes some way towards illustrating the frustration that the police authorities unquestionably feel at having to cut back on plans that were, after all, designed to improve public safety.
	This will have an impact on police services on the ground. In Lincolnshire, Chief Constable Richard Crompton has vowed to maintain his staff at its current level. He has said, however, that plans to employ 100 additional officers and police community support officerswhich he claims would have made a real difference to people living in Lincolnshirewill be abandoned. He had wanted to increase the number of officers monitoring serious offenders, including sex offenders, but that will now have to be put on ice indefinitely because the police authority does not have the necessary money.
	This is also bad for police service planning. How can authorities be expected to plan their services and ensure that they can adequately protect their local community when the Government move the goalposts at the last minute? As I have said, the administrative costs involved are quite significant, but the principle behind the action conspires with the logistical problems to create administrative chaos as well as political contradiction. For example, some people who already pay by standing order will have no time to make the necessary change and could find themselves in arrears. We have already discussed the content of the funding formula. Incidentally, most council tax rises are above 5 per cent. if precepts are included. So there is a practical problem, and also one of principle.
	I was rather surprised by the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). He is a tremendously nice chap, but he seemed to be highlighting a contradiction in the Conservative party's position. He said that this mess was a direct result of Government policy and that it seemed pretty clear that the lateral grants system was not working. He also said that the Government had created that situation. I agree with his criticisms, but we need to remember that it was none other than the Conservative Government who capped Lincolnshire police authority in 1995, in exactly the same way as the present Government are doing. I do not really understand how there can be political consistency in condemning the Minister and his Government today for doing something that the hon. Gentleman's party did 13 years agounlucky for some.

Bob Neill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take on board the fact that I quite deliberately said that the capping regime had passed its usefulness, and that the circumstances that applied in local government back in the 1980s were rather different from those that apply now. Perhaps he would also acknowledge that the Conservatives have a coherent policy, because we would abolish the capping regime and replace it with a democratic vote by putting excessive council tax rises to the electorate by way of a referendum. If the hon. Gentleman is keen on local democracy, perhaps he would like to endorse that proposal.

Lembit �pik: I simply do not understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that that interventioneloquent though it wasgoes any way towards explaining the evident self-contradiction in the Conservative party's position. Thirteen years agowe are not talking about the 1980s herethe Conservatives capped the Lincolnshire police authority. When they were sitting on the other side of the House, they did exactly the same thing that they are condemning the current Labour Government for doing. It is encouraging to hear the hon. Gentleman say that times have changed, but I remind him of the simple statistic that between 1991 and 1997, the Conservatives capped 31 authorities. I do not understand how he thinks he can get away with saying that capping is a thing of the past, when the Conservatives used it with gay abandon throughout the time they were in government in the 1990s. Perhaps there are other political reasons why Conservative Members are so keen on condemning capping now, but they need to provide a great deal more evidence before any Member could seriously believe that if the Conservatives were in government, they would do anything other than what the present Government are doing.
	Let me move on to deal with the Liberal Democrat position. I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the capping regime has passed its sell-by date, but so has council tax. The underlying issue is that we have an unfair system for funding these services. As hon. Members will know, Sir Michael Lyons's review recommended the abolition of capping and said that last-minute decisions were costly to administer, so

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a very short debate and many Lincolnshire Members want to contribute to it, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), having treated us to an imperfect history of the 1980s and '90s, is now describing the peculiarities of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Were it not, I certainly would have stopped the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he has heard the remarks that have just been made.

Lembit �pik: I am not surprised to see that, with all the contradictions in their policies, the Conservatives are squirming. I would point out to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that eight minutes is a relatively modest contribution and that unless I am considerably provoked, I will not see my way through to 11 minutes.
	Let me also remind Conservative Members that the alternative is to have a system that would prevent us from being in this mess in the first place. Once again, we hear hints from Conservative Front Benchers that they do not like capping, so I would infer that they are not terribly comfortable with the council tax system as a whole. Perhaps, then, we could make common cause with a better system in the form of a local income tax, which would do away with these problems.
	Given that the current situation is as it is, however, I revert to the fundamental principle that we find objectionable, and that when in opposition, the Labour party found objectionable: the principle of laying down the financial circumstances of local authorities from Westminster. That is exactly what we are doing here. Either we believe in local democracy and accept that local people have the right to vote on and object to these mattersin this case through consultation with local representativesor we believe that the central state has the right to usurp those decisions.
	The Liberal Democrats are utterly opposed to capping. We want the responsibility to lie in the local area and we think that, rather than having us intervene from a distance as we are now, we should allow the decision to be taken locally. Nobody thinks that a 79 per cent. increase is good, but any right-minded person who is serious about devolution and democracy can see that the principle of capping is very bad. For that reason, we shall press for a vote.

Quentin Davies: I was rather brought up to believe that the prime and foundational task of a Member of Parliament was to defend his or her constituents against unreasonable, excessive or unjust taxation. I rise this afternoon, conscious that that is what I am trying to do. I am struck by the fact that no Conservative Memberfrom Lincolnshire or anywhere elseappears to be remotely interested in playing that particular role. They are here, either explicitly or silently, to defend a completely unreasonable precept proposed by Lincolnshire police authority. With the honourable and laudable exception of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is not in his place, Conservative Members from Lincolnshire have been so much behind this preceptunreasonable and absurd as it isthat I am led to believe that the Conservatives on the police authority were whipped to vote in its favour.
	It is against that background that we should interpret what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has said this afternoon. I have nothing against him personally: he is a Front-Bench spokesman and he has to do as good a job as he can; he did so on the basis of a very bad brief. We know what that job consists of, however, because we see it done every day. Opposition Front Benchers come to the House and say, It's all the Government's faultit's all terrible. This afternoon the hon. Gentleman talked of a long-term malaise that was apparently all the Government's fault, without ever saying what the Conservatives would do differently. He did not suggest for a moment that they would introduce a different level or form of grant, or change the formula. What is more, he did not have the courage of his convictions in criticising the Government. Obviously he does not want to make himself even more unpopular in Lincolnshire by voting against the order, so he announced that he would not vote against it or call on his colleagues to do so.
	In terms of its content the hon. Gentleman's speech was a complete washout, although it was delivered in his usual charming fashion. As I have said, I do not blame him in any way. All that he is doing is coming to the House just as his colleagues do. It is only because we listen to the same thing every day that we can see through it. I understand why the public might initially think, That sounds very plausible: something must be wrong, and it is all the Government's faulthow terrible. Nice Tories, with their modern image, would not apply their critical faculties and realise that what is being proposed is complete air, complete hollowness, complete nothingness. That is the background to so many debates in the House of Commons nowadays, and to so many Opposition motions.
	Let me turn to the specifics of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire is very well policed. We are fortunate enough to have a good police force, and there are very good relationships between the public and the police. That is not the case in every part of the country. In rather more than 20 years in politics representing the people of south Lincolnshire in slightly different constituenciesthe constituency boundaries changed midstreamI have never encountered a case of police corruption or police violence. I will touch wood, because we all know that human beings are fallible everywhere, but I do not believe that there have been any such cases over that period, and probably for a long time before. We are deeply appreciative of that.
	It is perfectly reasonable for a chief constable to have ambitious desires to develop the force, improve the service to the public and improve the facilities available to officers and civilian staff. I am sure that I would feel the same if I were a chief constable. Anyone who runs an organisation feels like that. There is an element of empire-building in any form of management. In the private sector it is controlled by competition: those who become uncompetitive go out of business. In the public sector, it must be controlled by some other discipline. There must be some external countervailing force or influence to prevent excessive spending. That is why we need the disciplines that we have in the public sector today, one of which is the capping mechanism.
	I do not blame the chief constablea previous chief constable, in factfor producing a wish list that seems to have been excessively imaginative. I do, however, blame the police authority for not only accepting the wish list but adding to it, in an extremely uncritical fashion. I read with great attention the business plan and budget that the authority produced last summer, and begged its members not to proceed with it. Several things were wrong with it. First, it was far too long and full of verbiage and jargon. It was very incoherent and badly organised, and as a result very unconvincing. I think that someone else should draft the police authority's business plans in future. Secondly, it made a number of extravagant demands without any critical examination of the possibility of internal savings.
	A year ago almost to the day, I wrote a letter to the chairman of the police authority and the chief constable asking a number of questions. I asked, for example, why the number of civilians employed in the force could not be increased. Lincolnshire has a lower civilian quota than other shire counties. I received no reasoned answer to that question. I asked why we were not using specials more, and about a number of aspects of policing that seemed to me to be less than essential. I asked why we did not drop them and use the resources elsewhere, employing the officers concerned in other tasks. More recently, I have asked why our financial proposals do not take account of potential savings from the Flanagan reforms, and why we have notas some constabularies have rightly donetried to anticipate the reforms by getting rid of superfluous bureaucracy in advance. There is a lot of superfluous bureaucracy in the police force.
	The Lincolnshire police force has over the past few months not been behaving in the way we would expect if it were true that it has been reduced to penury; far from it, in fact. We opened a very nice new police station in Grantham last year, and within a month or two it was being repainted. On a Saturday afternoon a few weeks ago in Lincolnshire, I saw two policemen with speed guns engaged in traffic policing, but traffic policing should, on the whole, be done by civilians operating electronic equipment. I am always told that the real strain on policing occurs at the weekendsthat that is the expensive time, and that that is when there are often law and order difficulties in various places, such as at football matches on Saturday afternoons. I believe that we should use more specials at such times, but leaving that point to one side, there were those two uniformed officers not chasing after dangerous criminals or engaged in the kind of dramatic police operations that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) was saying will have to be sacrificed if Lincolnshire does not get the money it is demanding, but simply handing out speeding tickets.
	Neither my analysis of the Lincolnshire police budget and business plan, nor my own experience of Lincolnshire police, nor the reactions of my constituentswhom I believe are 100 per cent. behind me in everything I am saying on the subjectlead me to think that the demand for a 78 or 79 per cent. increase in the police precept from one year to the next was remotely reasonable or justified. The police authority's task should be not to accept uncritically what the force is asking for, let alone to add to its wish list, but to act as an intermediary between the police and the public, and to take account of the taxpayers' interests and of what the taxpayer can reasonably be expected to pay, and of what it is reasonable to ask for by way of an increase in charge for a public service from one week, month and year to the next.
	Last week, we were talking about how great an increase in the pay of Members of Parliament it might be reasonable to ask for, even if in the past they have been underpaid in relation to other professions, which is, of course, perfectly true. We asked whether it would be acceptable to have a sudden dramatic catch-up over the course of a year. Even if there is an argument that Lincolnshire should have been more generously funded in the past, which I think it should have been, and even if there are arguments about the funding formulawhich there are, and I believe the funding formula could be greatly improvedwas it reasonable to go for a 78 per cent. increase? Was that even sensible or pragmatic? The people who did this have public responsibilities. They are supposed to act in a way that is not only sound in terms of the philosophy of what they are doing, but which makes sense pragmatically in terms of making it likely that they will achieve the objectives of the institution for which they have a charge. They suddenly asked for 78 per centI think the figure is 78.5 per cent. actually, but I always say 78 per cent. to try to be fair.  [Interruption.] The Minister says the figure is 79 per cent. Regardless of which is correct, to ask for such an increase from one year to the next is immediately not to be taken seriously. Therefore, I think the police authority did a very irresponsible job.
	Moreover, the police authority is entirely responsible, as it knew the score. It had people, including me, begging it not to go down that road, and it knew it would have to rebill if it was capped. Therefore, it is entirely responsible for this 500,000that is the figure we have heard this afternoonwhich it will cost to rebill. I have called in my constituency, and I call now in the House, for the resignation of the chairman of the police authority and of all those members of it who voted for this completely inordinate increase, because I think they did a very bad day's work in doing so. They were quite irresponsible in the way in which they conducted that exercise, and they have now lost all credibility. I suspect they have lost a lot of credibility in Whitehall, and they have certainly lost a lot of credibility with the public in Lincolnshire, who can see that they were trying to get 100 or more out of them for a band D property, and they have now succeeded in getting only 30 for such a property. Also, as has been made clear, there will not be any redundancies as a result. A lot of the panicky propaganda that has been mouthed in Lincolnshire over the past few months has been seen to be as empty as the rhetoric we heard this afternoon from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Douglas Hogg: The House has just heard a rather disagreeable attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and a rather self-regarding speech from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), which included a rather disagreeable attack on the police authority. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that his present position on policy, and indeed in this House, would be more impressive if it had more to do with principle and less with personal pique. That is the last that I shall say of or to the hon. Gentleman in this debate.

Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Douglas Hogg: No, I will not give way. I had to give way to the hon. Gentleman when he sat on these Benches. I am happy to say that I do not have to give way to him now, and I do not propose to do so. I hope that I have made my position clear.
	I have no doubt that my constituents will be relieved by the fact that there has been a capping order. Inevitably, they were distressed by an increase at the level proposed by the police authority. Inevitably, they will also be relieved that they will pay less as a consequence of the capping order, but we must understand that what the police authority did reflected a serious underlying problem within the Lincolnshire police force.
	Those of us who have represented the county for many years, and my hon. Friends who have been in their places throughout this debate, know well that the Lincolnshire police force faces a serious problem of structural underfunding. Only a limited number of sources of finance are available to the police service. There is the precept, there is central Government grant and there is a special grant. The problem that Lincolnshire facesand has faced for several yearsis that the underlying grant has been too low. It is possible that we could criticise the police authority, in temperate and courteous language, for not having in the past increased the precept by as much as it could have done. I am inclined to think that there is some merit in that criticism and if the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to that, I would have had some sympathy with him.
	It is also possible that further savings could be made by the police service. I was, many years ago, a Home Office Minister with responsibility for the police and I am conscious that there are few police forces of which one could say that there are no further savings that they could sensibly make. However, that does not go to the root of the matter, which is one of structural underfunding.
	The Lincolnshire police force is now looking at a structural shortfalla deficitin 2010 of 14 million. It can put that right only through an increase in its funding or a decrease in expenditure. One of the real problems that face police servicesand local authorities, fire and ambulance servicesis that more than 80 per cent. of their budget goes on manpower. If police services want to shrink their budgets, they have to cut manpower. It can be done over time by reducing the number of uniformed officers, but I do not think that many people in Lincolnshire want to see that happen. It can be done by sacking civilian staff, but that involves up-front redundancy costs and then requires uniformed staff to do the tasks previously done by the civilian staff. That also reduces front-line services.
	We should be as unpartisan as we can about this problemand I make that point to the hon. Gentleman. There is a structural problem in Lincolnshire. I suspect that that is also true of Norfolk, Suffolk and some of the other forces. Why that should be so, I am not wholly clear. I have some difficulty in understanding the formula, as does the hon. Gentleman. He attended many a meeting that I did, and he did not understand, any more than I did, exactly how the formula was calculated. I have a strong feeling that rural areas are being discriminated against. That is not deliberate or malevolent, but because the Government's sympathies are not with the rural areas they have not focused on the matter with the intensity with which they should.
	I suspect that something like the following is true of Lincolnshire. Although it is a sparsely populated county, habitations are located quite close together. There are not many areas of wildness where there is nobody. Areas that contain nobody do not have to be policed too much, but sparsely populated counties with a lot of habitation have an intensive police requirement.

John Hayes: The characteristic that my right hon. and learned Friend is describing with such eloquence is that of a sparse and scattered population. I suspect that the formula that he described is insensitive to sparsity and almost oblivious to the kind of scattered population that he describes.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has put it more eloquently than I have and I am extremely grateful to him.
	There has been recognition of the underlying problem because the Home Office made a specific grant of 3.4 million last year. The fact that the capping has allowed the precept to rise by 26 per cent. or so is also an implied recognition of the problem. At the very best, it allows for a standstill budget and no more.
	Most people in the county, and most sensible commentators, too, will accept that the police in Lincolnshire are not performing as well as they should. They need more resources and unless there is a determination to drive up the base income, which is derived from the formula, there will be no prospect of a substantial increase in the resources dedicated to the county in the foreseeable future. I will not vote against the order, unlike the Liberal Democrats, because I recognise that it will be a considerable relief to my constituents. I will not embark on intemperate criticism of the police authority, such as that which I found so deeply unattractive, because it is wrestling with a serious problem and doing the best that it can in difficult circumstances. Unless we confront the problem of the formula, Lincolnshire and other police forces will find themselves in continuing difficulties that they will be unable to resolve.

Mark Simmonds: My right hon. and learned Friend is eloquently putting the balanced case that is of great concern to our constituents. Is he also of the view, as I am, that the significant increase in population in certain parts of Lincolnshire, particularly in my constituency around Boston, caused by a significant number of economic migrants coming to work in the agricultural and horticultural sectors has not yet significantly been taken appropriately into account and reflected in the funding formula and the money that comes to the police authority?

Douglas Hogg: I am sure that that is right. Thinking back to when I had dealings with the formula, which I always had great difficulty in understanding, I knew that there were long lead times and that the configuration of the county would change but that the changes in the configuration would take time to be fed into the formula. In the case of my hon. Friend's constituency, I am well aware that there has been a huge influx, particularly from eastern Europe, of migrant workers, many of whom bring special problemsfor example, linguistic problems. That raises an issue for the local force and I am sure that that has not been reflected.

Lembit �pik: Incidentally, I find visitors from eastern Europe quite charming, especially those from Romania. My point about the funding formula relates to the discrimination that I am certain is taking place and that is taking funding away from rural areas. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if that is the case it is probably happening because the performance indicators cause the police and the Government to try to focus police resources on places where they can get the biggest hit, which tend to be in the inner city? As a direct result, both Lincolnshire and my constituency, Montgomeryshire, have suffered when it comes to police resources.

Douglas Hogg: There is some truth in that. May I speak as a barrister, just for a moment? I practise in the criminal courts and in that capacity I am aware of the intensity of crime in inner-city areas. I represent people from Leeds and Bradford, and often from London as well, and I am really conscious of how lawless large parts of the inner cities have become. I recognise therefore that the Government feel that the police have to address those issues seriously, and I agree, but I think that they tend to overlook the problems that occur in the countryside. Although crime levels as such are lower in rural areas, anxiety about crime remains very high, and particular types of crime remain very difficult to detect, in part because of the sparsely populated nature of the countryside. I think that the Government's sympathies are not inherently with the rural areas, which they find easier to neglect than they do the cities.
	I shall not accuse the Minister of being complacent, as I understand that he is speaking to a brief. I understand too that he can say, Well, a standstill budget, what's wrong with that? However, I hope that he will take away from this debate an understanding that Lincolnshire has a serious problem with its police. He has prevented an immediate crisis, but he has not enabled the police to provide the better service that they need to provide.
	The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, along with the police authority, has been good enough to see me and to speak about this matter on a number of occasions. I hope that the two Ministers will seriously ask themselves whether they are content with the level and standing of the police in Lincolnshire. If the honest answer to that is noand that is the proper answer to givethey need to work together and with others to see whether more central Government funding can be brought to the Lincolnshire police budget.

John Hayes: It is an immense pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Before I speak about the police funding formula and Lincolnshire, I should like to put on record the fact that the Ministers for Local Government and for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing have both treated the representations made to them with care and courtesy.
	At the end of my remarks I shall be making a further demand of the Minister, but I shall begin with a word about the formula. I have understood local government finance only twice, and then fleetingly. My right hon. and learned Friend said, with a degree of humility matched only by his eloquence, that he barely understood it at all when he had responsibility for it. The first time that I understood it fleetingly was when I studied it at university as part of my degree, and the second time was when, as a Nottinghamshire county councillor, I proposed a budget amendment during that council's annual budget meeting.
	Those occasions were brief candles, now long extinguished, but I do understand that the formula does not serve Lincolnshire well. From the communications that I have received from the police authority, as well as from my discussions with Ministers and my conversations with my hon. Friends, I suspect that that is due in part to the formula's failure to cope adequately with the particular problems of rural areas and their sparse and scattered populations, and in part to its unresponsiveness to change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) will speak about the situation in Boston with altogether more knowledge than I can, but, as has been mentioned, the incoming population from central and eastern Europe has caused dramatic change in the area. I am not sure that the formula is terribly good at dealing with the rapidity of the changes that we have seen in Lincolnshire, or with the difficulties of providing a public service in a demography such as Lincolnshire's.
	We might say the same about health provision or the social services, but the problem is exaggerated in respect of policing, which faces a combination of demands. One is the need to respond to urgent problems, and that is coupled with the need for a profile which, if not ever present, is at least sufficient to reassure the public and deter criminals.
	I am sure that the Minister has recognised that the formula needs to be re-examined. Unless it is, we will end up in this circumstance again, we will debate the matters in a similar fashion and Ministers will spend inordinate amounts of time trying to come to a settlement, following the representations made to them by people such as us, the police authority and others. That would not be a satisfactory position for the House, for Lincolnshire or, indeed, for the Government.
	The feeling in Lincolnshire about those matters is running high. I was pleased to present to 10 Downing street a petition that was signed by several thousand of my constituents and organised between me and the local newspaper, the  Lincolnshire Free Press, which was kind enough to publish coupons that local people filled in, demanding that the Government take action. In that much I agreealthough it pains me to do sowith the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), whose presence is a delight to me, if only because, however inadequate my contribution, by contrast with his it will shine. He is right to concede that it must be said that the Government have at least responded to the concerns by using their discretion on capping.
	The Government were right not to cap the authority at 5 per cent., because the effect would have been monstrous, but I understand why the Government took the view that the scale of the authority's proposed increase was intolerable, because it would have not only ridden roughshod over policy, but placed an unfair burden on my constituents. However, by allowing the 26 per cent. increase, the Government have implicitly acknowledged that there is an infrastructural funding problem, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham described it. By accepting an increase of that size, they acknowledged that the police authority was in crisis, and that if they had not permitted thatstill very largeincrease, it would have faced cuts and closures, jeopardising public safety and public order in the estimation both of the authority, which has done a good job in making its case, as Ministers acknowledge, and of the police force, which has worked closely with representatives and with the authority.

Douglas Hogg: May I just refer to the point that my hon. Friend made about allowing the precept to rise by about 26 per cent? That implies that the grant should have been higher by the amount of the increase in the precept, but the Government are in fact shifting the responsibility from the central taxpayer to the local taxpayer to perform that which central Government should be performing.

John Hayes: Yes, indeed. It is not only an implicit acknowledgement of the scale of the problem, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend suggests, a transfer of responsibility for solving the problem. People in Lincolnshire will say, We're doing our bit, why isn't the Government doing their bit? We may be judging Ministers too harshly, and at the end of the debate, the Minister may tell us that he will conduct a root-and-branch review of the formula and make a special grant available to the police force, as the Government did last year.

Mark Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous champion of his constituents' interests in that regard and in many others.

Mark Simmonds: I think that my hon. Friend is coming to the crux of his remarks. He is absolutely right that there was a special one-off grant of 3.4 million last year to the Lincolnshire police authority, but is he aware that when the Government calculated the increase this year, they did not take into account that 3.4 million as the base figure, thereby making the authority's increased funding actually a decrease in the amount that it received last year?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend brings to the debate an understanding and a knowledge that I could not hope to emulate, and he is right to say that the addition of that 3.4 million effectively raised the baseline. It had become the standard, the norm, for the police authority, because it had spent and absorbed it, and the assumptions on which its future plans were predicated were built around that absorption. My hon. Friend has made a useful point. When we debated the matter in previous weeks and months, I wondered whether the Government might not only allow an exceptional rise in the precept but make a similar kind of grant, given the facts that my hon. Friend set out so clearly. That would, in a sense, be a compromise. It would broadcast the message that Government were doing their bit and the council tax payers were doing theirs.
	However, as I say, perhaps the Minister has something up his sleevea rabbit that he will produce from his hatin the form of extra money, or at least a commitment to a root-and-branch reform of the formula. I also hope that he will give a commitmentI make this request to him quite plainlyto meet representatives of the authority and the force as a matter of urgency to plan what will happen in the immediate future and in the next 12 months, so that we avoid a recurrence of these circumstances.
	Others want to speak, and I do not want to test their patience, or the patience of the House, too much, but in summary, we remain in our current circumstances. We have been given a very useful briefing by the police authority, to which I will refer. Lincolnshire remains the lowest spending force per head of population, and the force with the fewest officers per head of population. Despite having less resources than any other force in the country, Lincolnshire police are expected to cover the third biggest geographical area. Is it any wonder that the police authority, but more especially the police force, in the form of the former chief constable and our new chief constablea splendid man, who I know will do his very best with the resources available to himare so worried about their ability to provide the level and quality of policing that, in their judgment, the communities in Lincolnshire need and deserve? The chief constable has said
	we cannot make the investment into policing in Lincolnshire which we know is necessary to provide acceptable levels of service.
	When policemen make remarks of that kind, we know that there is a serious problem.
	We are not talking about providing an exemplary level of service, or about an ambitiousperhaps unreasonably soplan for how policing might be improved. We are talking about acceptabilitya baseline level of service. Surely my constituents in South Holland and The Deepings, and other residents of Lincolnshire, deserve at least that. I am sure that the Minister, who is a good Minister, would not demur.
	Finally, I hope that the case that has been made is a measured one. The hon. Member for Grantham and StamfordI do not want to be unnecessarily unkind to him, but it is necessary to be reasonably unkind to himclaims that the case has been exaggerated, and is extreme in some way. I totally disagree. I think that the case made by Members of Parliament, local authority representatives and the force has been measured. The authority and the force want to be able to respond to changes in population demands, and they want to devise a plan for dealing with serious organised crime, which does exist in Lincolnshire, despite the bucolic image often painted of our countyand indeed, it is a splendid place to live. They want to develop policing to meet current needs and dynamic demands. They deserve the chance to be able to do so.
	Of course I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) that we must accept the order. I want the police force in Lincolnshire to be able to implement its plans to do its best for Lincolnshire people. Is that unreasonable? I think not.

Mark Simmonds: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who is an articulate and tireless campaigner on behalf of his constituents. He was absolutely right to highlight the real concern felt when the police authority put forward its initial precept. Both our constituencies have a significant number of hard-working but low-waged people who find things difficult, particularly given the current economic contraction, rising fuel and food prices, and the fact that they have little public transport and little alternative to using their cars to get to work and go about their daily business. A rise of nearly 80 per cent. in the police precept therefore presented a significant challenge to their personal and family finances. That is one reason why I will not vote against this capping order.
	I was delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is a distinguished and eloquent former police Minister, made a forensic analysis of the issues. He was absolutely right that the lack of flexibility in the funding formula is to blame for Lincolnshire police authority's current problems. I will return to that point later.
	I shall not say too much about the contribution of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who is a constituent of mine, except that it was disappointing. I found it slightly offensive that there was a direct implication that Conservative Members representing Lincolnshire constituencies do not represent their constituents to the best of their ability. We were concerned about the proposed rate of the police precept, and he is absolutely wrong to suggest that we acquiesced in it. I am pleased that the Minister has introduced the order.
	I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who has been courteous throughout the process. He has at least listened to the concerns of Lincolnshire MPs of all parties. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings in requesting that he examine some specific issues prior to future funding reviews.
	The Minister for Local Government introduced the order in a typically calm and considered way, but I am afraid that he cannot get away with implicitly passing the blame on to the police authority. The reason for its problems is insufficient resources from central Government. The point has already been made, but it is worth re-emphasising that Lincolnshire police authority is the lowest-funded force per head of population in the whole country. The next lowest, Suffolk, gets 11 million more. It is recognised and acknowledged that the problem is with the funding formula. It is inflexible and unresponsive to Lincolnshire's population, geography, rurality and sparsity. As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend, the 3.4 million grant last year was made in recognition of the fact that the authority has funding problems. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham rightly pointed out the deficit.
	Of course it is right that police funding is not awarded on a per capita basis, and there are complexities and differences between urban areas and rural ones such as Lincolnshire. However, the disparity in the numbers is stark. The West Midlands police authority gets 189.78 per head, Greater Manchester 189.54, Northumbria 188.62, and South Yorkshire, the Minister's own police authority, 162.74. Lincolnshire gets only 112.29 per head. I shall say more in a moment about the significant increase in population.
	There has been underfunding for a number of years. I accept that it is not a new phenomenon. There are no more police officers in Lincolnshire than 10 years ago, and there are fewer officers per capita than in any other force in the country. Its limited resources have to be applied over the third largest police authority area in the whole country.
	My right hon. and learned Friend made a pertinent point. Had the Minister not allowed a significant precept, 25 per cent. of the police officers in the Lincolnshire police authority might have had to be made redundant. As I said in an intervention, that confirms that the funding formula is not working for Lincolnshire. Such redundancies are not legal, and the authority's only alternative would have been to make 364 civilian staff redundant and withdraw police officers from the front line to do that civilian work at additional cost to the police authority.
	If there is one consistent theme articulated by my constituents in Boston and Skegness, it is that they want a more visible police force, and I believe that that is true elsewhere in Lincolnshire. If the precept had not been allowed at 26 per cent., we would be moving in completely the wrong direction.
	The argument that the Minister for Local Government seemed to makeand a small part of it may be truewas that Lincolnshire police authority must be more efficient. That has been looked into by PricewaterhouseCoopers and academics at Loughborough university. The Minister will be aware that the police authority has made year-on-year efficiency savings, rightly demanded by the Home Office, to the tune of 12.3 million over the past nine years. Because of the overall funding problems, the police authority has not been able to use those savings to improve the provision of services, as it has had to use them to bridge the deficit.

Douglas Hogg: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lincolnshire force produced an economic recovery plan, which was submitted to the Home Office which, as far as I know, has not suggested that its proposals for efficiency savings were seriously defective?

Mark Simmonds: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a fundamental point, and he is right. The issue goes even further, because Loughborough university, which looked at Lincolnshire police authority in relation to other police authorities, said not only that it was a highly efficient authority, but that it might well be the most efficient police authority in England and Wales. The point that he made about the report that went to the Home Office confirms the view that, contrary to what the Minister said, Lincolnshire is already an efficient authority, and the increase in the precept has nothing to do with inefficiency, but much more to do with the chief constable and the police authority wanting to increase the provision of services for people who live in Lincolnshire.
	May I say a few words about the significant increase in population in Lincolnshire, particularly in Boston in my constituency? The Minister will be aware of the contribution made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government before the Communities and Local Government Committee, in which she confirmed that even Government figures, which tend to lag behind the reality on the ground, showed that one in four people in the borough of Boston were economic migrantsprimarily from eastern Europe, but there is also a significant population from Portugal. Indeed, in one primary school in the centre of Boston, nearly 40 per cent. of pupils speak English as a second language. The population of Boston has risen dramatically: according to the 2001 census, the borough then had a population of 55,000; in 2006, according to the Office for National Statistics, the population was nearly 59,000. Boston borough council, however, estimates that it could really be as high as 70,000nearly 25,000 more than the figure in the official 2001 census. That is not reflected in the funding formula at all.
	The migrants working in the borough of Boston are welcome, as long as they are here legally and legitimately to participate in the essential functioning of the agricultural sector. However, Ministers will be aware that there have been tensions in Boston, which culminated in terrible riots in 2004. There are additional burdens, financial and otherwise, on the police authority. It is calculated that in that population of 60,000 to 70,000, some 65 languages are spoken, creating immense challenges for the police authority, which has had to produce documents in Portuguese, Russian, Polish and other languages to try to communicate with the new communities that have arrived. There is a strong case for giving population growth in Lincolnshire greater consideration in the allocation of funding. I know that the Home Office has been lobbied, but that does not seem to have had any material impact, so I very much hope that Ministers will take on board what I have said when they consider these matters in future.
	Finally, I want to look at the impact on policing in Lincolnshire and what the police authority will not be able to deliver that it wants to deliver because of the lack of Government funding. There will be insufficient resources to address serious crime, a good example of which is the famous Stirland case, which involved a double murder between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. There will continue to be serious failings in the management of sex offenders and rape. Only today, assistant commissioner John Yates called for every force to have its own rape protection unit; Lincolnshire will face serious challenges and problems in fulfilling that important task. There could be high-risk failures in Lincolnshire police authority's approach to special branch and intelligence work. Lincolnshire will have 100 fewer police officers than other, similar authorities. It might well be unable to meet the criteria required for the management of dangerous offenders, including sex offenders and violent offenders.
	The chief constable and the authority wanted to implement a whole series of additional services, but they will no longer be able to. I shall not give all the details, because I am sure that the Minister is aware of them, but they include plans to use 19 officers to establish a 24-hour rape investigation team, and 63 additional officers in neighbourhood policing. Those plans and those officers would have brought about exactly what the people of Lincolnshire want: higher visibility for the police force. The Government must respond to those serious and significant deficiencies. If left unaddressed, they could have a detrimental impact on safety, security and the quality of life for people in my constituency and elsewhere in Lincolnshire.
	In conclusion, I should say that the issues have been accepted and acknowledged; the Minister acknowledged them in the House on 27 March. The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing acknowledged that there was an issue in an interview on BBC Radio Lincolnshire when he was in the county on 26 June. The fact that the Government have allowed a 26 per cent. increase in the precept is recognition in itself that there is a problem; even that extensive increase allows only a standstill service. Without change, Lincolnshire will have the lowest spending per head on policing, with the lowest number of officers per head covering the third largest geographical area in the country. The Government have made it clear that Lincolnshire police authority is not allowed to raise additional funds through council tax, thereby determining that additional resources must come from central Government. Those resources must therefore flow from the Home Office.
	I ask the Minister to consider two particular matters. In consultation with the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing and the Lincolnshire police authority, will he consider the necessity for a one-off payment yet again to assist Lincolnshire police authority for this financial year? Secondly, I reinforce the point made by other hon. Members. Will he undertake a fundamental review of the funding formula to ensure a permanent solution to this time-consuming annual exercise, in which the police authority has to lobby the Government for the requisite resources? That could be done simply in the short term through a consideration of the flaws that were going to stop the Lincolnshire police authority from getting up to 8.2 million in the next three years under the comprehensive spending review.

John Hayes: Will my hon. Friend add a third request? He could echo my call for an urgent meeting between Ministers and representatives of the authority and the force. Urgent means that it should be before the summer recess, so that the issues can be explored in good time and we do not suffer the problems that we have had this year.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; if Ministers are willing, I will be more than happy to participate in such a meeting. We cannot have this annual event in which the chief constable, his senior officers, the police authority and Lincolnshire Members of Parliament of all political parties are involved in this time-consuming exercise of trying to make sure that the Lincolnshire police authority gets the requisite and appropriate resources. The issue needs to be sorted out once and for all, and that can be done only by reworking the funding formula.

John Healey: I am pleased to have the support of those on the Conservative Benches in introducing the order, even if they are not going to support it by voting for it this evening.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) mentioned the funding settlement. I take him back to what the Association of Chief Police Officers said about the settlement for the police forces around the country:
	The overall settlement is broadly in line with anticipated rises in core costs, and this will help preserve many of the key gains in police officer and police staff numbers made in recent years.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised points about the funding formula for police, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds). As he will know better than many, that was drawn up in conjunction with ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities. It was last reviewed in 2007 and fully consulted on after that to produce the basis on which we have made decisions for the next three years. One of the factors taken into account in arriving at the funding formula is population sparsity in the area concerned. In addition, Lincolnshire is benefiting from the former rural policing fund, which is still distributed to police authorities on the same basis, but now with no strings attached. This year, the contribution from that fund is part of an extra 10.7 million going to Lincolnshire police on top of the general police grant and the revenue that it raises from its council tax precepts.
	We have to base calculations for the funding formula on figures that are consistent across the country, and on the most recent figures produced by the independent Office for National Statistics. Those have weaknesses, particularly as populations across the country become larger, more mixed and more mobile, and it is clear that we have to improve our data and the evidence on which we base funding formulae. That work is ongoing. It is being led by the national statistician, has the strong involvement of the Local Government Association, and reports to and is supported by a group of Ministers jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend the policing Minister and myself. Let me say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that ACPO indicated in a recent report that there has been no crime wave associated with migration into this country. The hon. Gentleman did not argue that point, nor to my knowledge has his police authority, although others have. Nevertheless, we have now created in Government a fund to assist local authorities, including police authorities, in meeting the transitional costs caused by migration pressures such as those that he mentioned.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place, made a series of wider points. As always, my right hon. Friend the policing Minister listened carefully to those, as well as to his special early plea on behalf of his own Leicestershire police authority. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked whether my right hon. Friend the Minister will meet his police authority as a matter of urgency to discuss the way ahead. He will, and I am sure that that meeting can be fixed without delay.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was right about the need for financial disciplines in all parts of government, particularly in relation to fall-back powers to be used in extreme cases, as in the situation that we face with Lincolnshire police authority. He has clearly followed closely the decisions that the police authority has taken on its precept and its budget, and he is right to be critical of those. He was sharp in his critique of the vague Conservative position in relation not only to this order but to the wider issue of local government funding, and to wider policy on local government as a whole.
	In response to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), I must explain that there is a cost to rebilling, as the police authority knew when it took its decision to set a 29 per cent. increase in its budget for this year and a 79 per cent. increase in its council tax precept. He claimed that the action in the capping order was disproportionate. Given that it results in every band D council tax payer in Lincolnshire having their council tax bill cut by 69 this year, it is not a disproportionate move but a necessary one. People in Lincolnshire will be astonished that the hon. Gentleman intends to lead the Liberal Democrats into the Lobby tonight to vote, in effect, for a 70 increase on council tax bills for this year.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

John Healey: I shall not give way; I am going to conclude on this point.
	On the contraryand this is my final wordpeople in Lincolnshire will take the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who said that his constituents would be relieved that I am introducing this capping order. They will be relieved that we have debated the order, and I hope that the House will give it the go-ahead, so that we can put measures in place to protect council tax payers in Lincolnshire from an excessive council tax rise as a result of the police authority's decision. We will do so having listened carefully to the case that it has made, and having set the cap at a level that allows it to live within its means and to avoid any reduction in police officer numbers. The police will be able to carry out their duties, as a good police service should.

Question put:
	 The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 45.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Maximum Amounts) (England) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
	Orders of the Day

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [ LORDS]

Read a Second time .
	 Motion made, and Question put  forthwith , pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation  bills),
	That the Bill be not committed.[ Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Community Emissions Trading Scheme (Allocation of Allowances for Payment) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved. [ Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

International Development

That the draft African Development Bank (Eleventh Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved. [ Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Proceeds of Crime

That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved. [ Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Social Security

That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved. [ Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

HMRC Workforce Change

John Hayes: I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in South Holland. It is supported by at least 2,500 of them. Indeed, I have met almost no one in my constituency who does not sympathise with what it espouses. It concerns the protection of public services in Spalding, which have an effect on a wider area around the town. I am proud to present the petition, which has my unstinting and unequivocal support.
	The Petition of people of South Holland,
	Declares that large parts of their public services are being cut and privatised and that across the UK public servants are struggling to deliver good quality service in the midst of redundancies, low pay and rising workloads. Further declares that the HMRC Office in Spalding is vital to helping those that are self employed, employed, families on tax credits, pensioners and unemployed persons.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Treasury to work to ensure that the HMRC Office in Spalding remains open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000232]

Social Fund (Funeral Expenses)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Blizzard.]

Tom Clarke: I should like to start by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the subject of funeral expenses. Highlighting the vexed questions surrounding making a claim for social fund funeral expenses is not regularly debated in the House, so I am particularly grateful. I might also add in my preliminary comments that for fairly obvious reasons this is not a subject with which people easily or willingly engage, but it is none the less a serious issue that, in my view, requires Government intervention.
	I have an excellent working relationship with councillors representing my party on North Lanarkshire council. Indeed, the council has introduced an outstanding best practice initiative on claiming funeral expense payments, which I will describe later. My friend and colleague Councillor William Hogg and I have had extensive discussions about how constituents on low incomes cope with bereavement and, in particular, with funeral expense payments.
	Councillor Hogg represents the former mining community of Moodiesburn, and we will never forget the enormous sacrifice miners made over many decades to the economy, as their health was severely damaged and they contracted diseases such as emphysema, pneumoconiosis and silicosis. We will never forget the darkest day ever suffered by our community, the Auchengeich disaster in which 47 men lost their lives back in 1959. The people of that community will never forget that day, when so many men were killed, women became widows and mothers lost their sons.
	That brings me appropriately to my introductory point: we can fix almost anything where there is a determination to do so, but death is final. When a person dies, people are saddened; when a relative or a close friend dies, we are emotionalin many cases, absolutely devastated. When we are in such a state of shock and there is no money for a burial or to pay for a cremation, we do not have time to grieve properly because we are anxious to avoid the embarrassing humiliation of a funeral without dignity. There is, of course, a safety net in the shape of the social fund, but I am sorry to say that public understanding and knowledge of that fund is not as widely known as it should be.
	There are three specific areas that I aim to cover in the course of this debate: accessibility, eligibility and funeral payments. On accessibility, I want to be constructive and positive in sharing with my hon. Friend the Minister information about a pilot programme that was introduced by North Lanarkshire council. The initiative was designed to help people access social fund funeral expenses. The partnership between the Department for Work and Pensions and the council resulted in benefit packs being made available in registration officesa perfectly reasonable proposition, given that when a family is bereaved, one of the first places it has to visit is the local registry office in order to register the death.
	Customer feedback was greatly encouraging, as one woman was quoted as saying:
	Absolutely fantastic service, this partnership working helped to ease the transition of being widowed.
	Another woman said that
	it was nice to know people cared.
	If constituents on low incomes need to claim funeral benefit, we need to ensure that the service is easily accessible. The service provided by North Lanarkshire council ought to be seen as best practice when it comes to communication, but even when it is known that such provision exists, making a successful claim can be difficult for those who are eligible. A local funeral director told me:
	The biggest problem is when the relatives actually think they are entitled to a payment but don't qualify. It then turns out they are responsible for payment of the total funeral account. In these situations the demeanour of families can be aggressive towards Funeral services staff..
	Establishing an accurate record of the position in regard to eligibility, nationally and locally, has not been without difficulty. When preparing for the debate, I wrote to my local DWP office on 27 May requesting detailed information about what has happened in my constituency. I wanted to know how many funeral claims had been submitted, how many had been successful, how many had been partially successful and how many had been rejected. Due to a reorganisation of resources in the DWP, I have not yet received a definitive reply to all my questions, but, to its credit, the Department has furnished me with details of the funeral payments for Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire district, which covers my constituency. According to those figures, the number of claims received in 2005-06 was 1,790, the number of initial awards was 1,150, the number of partial initial awards was 1,130, and the number of initial refusals was 460. In summary, the refusal rate was a considerable 25 per cent.
	However, I wish to record my appreciation to the funeral directors in my constituency whom I consulted. I wanted to learn of their experiences in dealing with members of the public who had made applications for social fund funeral expenses. I was impressed by the professional responses that I received from Co-operative Funeralcare. Donald McLaren, a member of the National Association of Funeral Directors, Joseph Potts and Mr. Flannigan, who represents Lanarkshire and is incredibly well informed on the subject, could not have been more helpful. Funeral directors are very important: they have a wealth of knowledge as well as experience. Although I consulted them about the generality of what happens, I am certain that they have much more to offer by way of detail, which could make the process a little less painful for bereaved relatives.
	Let me give just one example of what is happening to some bereaved families. According to Rights Advice Scotland, some funeral undertakersnot those whom I have mentioneddemand a down payment that can range from 440 to 675 before they will take a deceased person's remains into their care. Despite my references to my constituency and to Scottish organisations representing low-income families, my hon. Friend the Minister can be assured that I have no intention of being parochial, and I do not wish to pretend that problems associated with funeral payments are peculiar or exclusive to my constituency. The complexity of funeral payments, from accessibility to eligibility, spreads throughout Great Britain.
	Let me make one more point before I turn to the main theme of the actual level of funeral payments. If I can be entirely open, people are not comfortable about discussing matters relating to death. I fully understand their reluctance to do so, as nothing is more emotive than bereavement. Making funeral arrangements is not a simple task: it is complex, but, more importantly, it is costly, and ever increasingly so, and it is that aspect that was the catalyst for this debate.
	External research shows that it costs an average of almost 6,000 to die in Britain, after the cost of a funeral rose by 10 per cent. during the past year. The average cost of a funeral is now 2,390, with cremations, which account for 72 per cent. of funerals, costing about 2,160 and burials costing 2,620. The funeral is only the beginning of the costs families face when they lose someone, however, with about 229 typically spent on flowers, 98 spent on a death notice in a newspaper, and a further 149 paid for a funeral notice. On top of this, people also spend an average of 341 on catering, 612 on a memorial such as a headstone and 2,107 on the administration of an estate, bringing the total cost to 5,923.
	The cost of funerals looks set to continue to rise, with charges estimated to increase by a further 38 per cent. between now and 2012 to average 3,299. Unsurprisingly, the cost of dying is highest in London, where it averages 8,020. A consultant who studied the industry said:
	Funeral prices alone have risen faster than inflation.
	I cannot find a funeral director or a constituent who will confirm that the current funeral payment made via the social fund is sufficient. The Social Security Committee in 2001 cited evidence from funeral directors who said that
	they find it very difficult to offer dignified funerals to claimants at this level of the Funeral Payment.
	The social fund is the main political concern within the funeral industry. Funeral directors believe that it is unfair to include their fees in a price cap that is frozen for uncertain periods of time with no formula in existence to increase the cap or reflect the increase in inflation. Moreover, the 700 price cap, which has not increased since April 2003, does not take into account the cost of a simple funeral. There is uncertainty over what Other Funeral Expenses includes, and the industry, together with the Churches Funeral Group, believes it is wrong for the minister's fee to be included in the 700 price cap. Allow me to cite the reasons for the funeral industry's concerns: the retail prices index has increased by 16.4 per cent. since April 2003, and the average cost of the NAFD simple funeral in March 2007 was 1,050.70.
	There are a number of solutions that the Government could introduce to resolve the current situation, and I shall cite some examples. They could immediately increase the 700 price cap in order to reflect the cost of a simple funeral. They could index link the price cap to ensure fairness. They could provide clarity to the funeral industry, Department for Work and Pensions staff and the bereaved as to what is included in the price cap.
	I respectfully urge the Minster to conduct a review of the present rate of funeral payments awarded through the social fund, and then to draw a comparison with the average funeral costs. It would be extremely beneficial to consult local authorities, and particularly the NAFD. Only by engaging in such a meaningful process are we likely to ascertain the true scale of difference and then, and only then, can we begin to bridge the gap in the evident shortfall.
	Before I conclude, it would be remiss of me not to pay a justifiable and warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), who is the chair of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement. His experienced and skilful leadership of the group is much admired on both sides of the House, particularly for his decorum and vision. Let me also mention Mr. Alan Slater, chief executive officer of the National Association of Funeral Directors, who is to be commended for his outstanding role in representing the valuable contribution of funeral directors throughout Britain.
	This Government have an absolutely first-class record of helping people out of poverty, examples of which I will not weary the House by giving at this time of the evening, important though they are. The Government also have ambitious plans effectively to address decades of inequalities, and those plans will result in a more equal and fairer society. In that spirit, I urge them to end the shameful feelings suffered by relatives who may have had the most unfortunate experience of having a member of their own familya loved onewho was too poor to die.

James Plaskitt: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate on an important, butas he rightly saysnot always easy subject. I endorse what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and Mr. Slater, both of whom I meet reasonably regularly to discuss the issues raised in this debate.
	I am aware that my right hon. Friend wrote to the Jobcentre Plus office in Springburn and that there was some delay in providing him with the information that he requested. I am sorry that it took some time to get back to him, but I am pleased that he has now had some information.
	I hear the concerns that my right hon. Friend expresses, but I am sure that he will be aware that those claiming a funeral payment in his constituency do at least as well from the scheme as those claiming in other parts of the country, and sometimes actually do better. We do not have statistics at constituency level, but only at Jobcentre Plus budget area level. His constituency is covered by the Jobcentre Plus delivery centre in Springburn. In 2007-08, 5,980 claims were received in that delivery centre, of which 3,870 received an initial award. That compares with 65,000 claims nationally, which resulted in 35,250 awards.
	The success rate for applications in Springburn is 64.7 per cent., which is higher than the overall national rate of 54.2 per cent. Of the 3,870 initial awards, 97 per cent. were partial awards, which is a little above the national average. The initial refusal rate for claims made to the centre in Springburn was lower, at 35 per cent., than the national figure of 42 per cent. For Springburn, the percentage of all awards as a percentage of applications processed was nearly 69 per cent., compared with 61 per cent. nationally. The total expenditure for Springburn last year was 4.65 million, out of a national gross figure of 45.9 million. For the geographical area covered by Springburn, the average award was 1,133, a fraction less than the national average of 1,162.
	On my right hon. Friend's final question about the amounts of money paid out in respect of social fund funeral payments in each of the past three years, we do not have complete figures because of office mergers, as he has said. During 2005-06, when his constituency was covered by the Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire Jobcentre Plus district, the figure paid was 1.24 million. We have only partial figures for the next year from April to December, when the figure was 880,000. Last year, expenditure was 4.65 million.
	As I have dealt with the figures that my right hon. Friend sought, let me now turn to the operation of the funeral payments scheme as a whole. Last year, 40,000 social fund funeral payments were made at a gross cost of 46 million. I say gross cost because there was some recovery from the estates in many instances. In that way, the funeral payment scheme has continued to provide towards the cost of a simple, respectful, low-cost funeralthat is, to provide for the necessary costs of burial or cremation in full plus a significant contribution towards the fee levied by a funeral director. That fee, as he knows, is currently 700.
	Those payments are made to recipients, and the partners of recipients, of income-related benefits and tax credits, thus ensuring that the payment is as widely accessible as possible for people with lower incomes. It is worth looking at the list of qualifying benefits, because for funeral payments it is a long one: income support; income-based jobseeker's allowance; pension credit; child tax credit; working tax credit; housing benefit; and council tax benefit.
	It will perhaps come as no surprise to the House that approximately 50 per cent. of funeral expenditure goes to pensioners. Furthermore, last year 55 per cent. of initial awards were paid to the partner of the deceased person. I am confident that the funeral payment scheme provides those who have lost a loved one in circumstances where no provision had been made to cover funeral expenses with a means of meeting what they see to be their obligation.
	Although funeral payments do not operate in a cash-limited budget, resources are finite. Although the scheme provides for the full necessary cost of burial or cremation and a significant contribution towards funeral costs for those who need that help the most, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that we also have a responsibility to keep public expenditure under control in this area. For that reason, the qualifying criteria are stringent to ensure that payment is made only when it is reasonable for the applicant to have taken responsibility for the cost of the funeral. It is interesting to note that even as far back as 60 years ago, regulations to limit who could receive payment, in what circumstances and what the payment should provide for were considered necessary. Those concerns have been carried forward in the current scheme.
	The qualification criteria for who might qualify were tightened several times in the 1990s in an attempt to tackle the issue of people taking responsibility for a funeral and claiming when other members of the family were better placed to do so. Primarily, those changes were a reaction to a steady year-on-year increase in expenditure which had reached nearly 63 million by 1994-95. As a result, the number of funeral payment awards dropped and expenditure dropped back to about 42 million.
	Let me return to the current scheme. The provisions are encapsulated in the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 2005 and, as my right hon. Friend will know, established conditions must be met. The scheme allows for the full necessary cost of burial or cremation plus 700 for other funeral expenses. In addition, allowances can be made where appropriate for additional necessary transportation costs and the necessary costs of a return journey for the responsible person, either for the purpose of making arrangements or for attendance at the funeral.
	I am of course aware, from the meetings I have had with the all-party group and from a large amount of ministerial correspondence, of concerns that the amount allowed for funeral directors' fees does not meet the full cost. However, as I have already pointed out, the scheme does provide for the full necessary cost of burial or cremation, despite the wide range in those costs, particularly for burials, in different parts of the country. The costs vary widely, and cremations generally cost less than burials. Burial costs can range from 774 to as much as 2,750. For cremation, the range is smallerbetween 311 and 530. The average amount included in a funeral payment last year for burial costs was 852, and 495 for cremation costs. The average funeral payment last year was 1,162. That reflects the position after deductions have been made to take into account any moneys held by the deceased or insurance on the life of the deceased that is then available to the responsible person. However, the average payment differs significantly around the country. Last year, the average payment in south-east Wales was 952, while in Londonto which my right hon. Friend referredthe figure was 1,550.
	The cost of the components of a simple funeral, excluding burial or cremation, also vary significantly for different parts of the country. My officials recently looked at the costs across a number of different geographical areas. In some of those areas, including north Lanarkshire, a simple funeral could be obtained for around 1,000, while the lowest cost of 798 was to be found in Newport, Wales. On the other hand, the most expensive simple funeral, at 1,600, was in Edinburgh. I have to say that it is not entirely clear to me why the costs of a simple, dignified funeral should vary so much from one funeral director to another.
	From those figures, one can see that the total cost of a simple funeral including a burial in Edinburgh would be in the region of 3,300. At the other end of the spectrum, in Cardiff the cost would be 1,572half the Edinburgh figure. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the amount available as a funeral payment still represents a significant contribution to the cost of a funeral.
	Funeral directors must take some responsibility for ensuring that they can take account of a customer's circumstances before taking a contract to provide a funeral whose cost is clearly beyond the means of that customer, even if a social fund funeral payment is to be made.
	As I said earlier, I have regular meetings with the all-party parliamentary group, and I also receive correspondence from the industry trade associations. I value the feedback that comes to me from these quarters. I am pleased to say that we recently introduced the facility for funeral payments to be made directly into the bank account of funeral directors. The industry had been keen for some time to have that.
	I accept there are big regional variations in add-on costs and that currently there is considerable complexity in the scheme that makes it difficult for those claiming a funeral payment, or their funeral director, to work out what they might be entitled to, or indeed even generally navigate the system. I am keen to try to address those concerns. I have asked my officials to consider over the summer how we might better target the help available.
	Although the social fund funeral payment scheme has its detractorsmy right hon. Friend listed some continuing issues with itI believe that it plays an important role in social security safety net provision. It is right that we exercise control on expenditure in this area, but it is also right that we continue to provide, for most customers, a funeral payment that meets the full costs of burial or cremation and goes a significant way to meeting funeral directors' costs. As I have said, I accept that there are some weaknesses in the scheme as it currently operates. My right hon. Friend alluded to them, and I am examining ways of addressing them. I hope to be in a position to say more about that in the not-too-distant future.
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty  two  minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 56.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 56.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Prisons

That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 118.

Question accordingly agreed to.